Hacktoberfest 2026: los issues que los mantenedores marcaron para octubre, abiertos y aptos para principiantes. Explorar issues de Hacktoberfest

TAG Appointment Process Shortcomings

Abierto
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#809 25 comentarios 2 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
5/5
Tiempo estimado
Más de una semana
Aptitud para principiantes
20/100
Tipo de issue
Nueva funcionalidad
Claridad
Bastante claro
Estado de actividad
Estancado
Área
documentation

Línea de trabajo

Comienza revisando el proceso existente de nombramiento del TAG y los cuatro cambios propuestos en este issue: los plazos, la consulta al TAG, el tiempo para seleccionar a los candidatos y los mandatos escalonados. La tarea se consideraría terminada cuando exista un proceso acordado y actualizado, incluida la resolución de las preocupaciones sobre la ratificación y el momento de los nombramientos.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

TAG Appointments

(I've already shared feedback along these lines with the Team.)

The obvious and stated purpose of TAG appointments is to address the innate drawbacks of an election process as far as diversity goes. It does not matter what aspect of diversity is considered, elections cannot produce multiple selections in a way that ensures that the set of selections maintains an appropriate amount of diversity. For instance, this year we have a troubling lack of women (though this is not the fault of the electors).

Having the Team be responsible for appointments on the same timeline as elections is a very poor design for several reasons.

There is insufficient time between the time that the election terminates and when the Team needs to make a decision. From my experience with the IETF NomCom, finding a substantive enough selection of people who are willing to serve in a position like this takes time, then it takes time to gather the information necessary to make a good decision. In this case, it will also take time to make a decision, as decisions need to be ratified by a supermajority of both the TAG and the AB[^1].

[^1]: A side note: I do not think that the AB has a role in making this particular decision. A more typical process is for the body itself to manage diversity appointments. If the goal is to ensure that the Team remains accountable to the membership for their choices, then put potential appointments up for comment and maybe objections (formal or otherwise) from the membership. I will open a separate issue to track this.

Six weeks is very much inadequate for this purpose, especially considering that this is over a holiday period in many parts of the world. I'm personally leaving on vacation soon and will not return before the end of the nomination period. I am sure that you will find it extraordinarily difficult to find good people.

As far as I can see, there is no formal reason for the elections to run so late in the term. You might say that if more time is needed, then the Team could schedule the election earlier so that there is more time for appointments.

I would argue instead that having elections conclude close to the time that a term starts is a good goal. Extending the period between election and term start makes it more likely that the election results become irrelevant, as those elected are more likely to have job changes or other life events that invalidate the results. The gap between election and term start should only allow enough time to manage the necessary logistical functions and for those elected to transition work as needed. Six weeks is about right for this purpose, four would be better, but that timing doesn't work. Note also that this settling period would not be available to appointees no matter how long that period is for elected members.

The other reason that this process is not ideal is that it takes very little account of what the TAG - the group to which the appointment is being made - needs. Though the new TAG votes on any decision, I would argue that consultation with the TAG is paramount before the appointment process starts. For new TAG members like myself, I have very little information about my soon-to-be colleagues and their strengths. I am not confident of being able to make an informed decision if an appointment is put to the vote.

My suggestion therefore is this:

  1. Start the appointment process a short period after the new TAG is seated.
  2. Consult the TAG about what you think their needs are and be guided by what they have to say about the gaps that need to be addressed.
  3. Run the appointment process on a schedule that ensures that the Team are able to find good candidates.
  4. Have the terms for appointments staggered relative to elected appointments. I would say that a reasonable timeline for the entire process would be at least three months, so that would have appointed members join the TAG around May or June.
Lenguaje dominante
HTML
Estrellas
263
Forks
193
Sin PR fusionados en 30 d

Preparar el entorno

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de w3c/process

Todos los issues de w3c/process

Issues similares

Más issues de Documentation

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.