Constrain requests to fill vacated seats more precisely.

[jyasskin]

The original wording could have been interpreted as either 3 months to
the next call for nominations or 3 months to the expected deadline for
votes. This picks the first interpretation to avoid having multiple
overlapping elections.

---

Preview | Diff

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Constrain requests to fill vacated seats more precisely, and agreed to the following:

• ACTION: cwilso to discuss with jyasskin

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Constrain requests to fill vacated seats more precisely
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/1038
<fantasai> cwilso: Agree with jyasskin that the existing wording is not clear
<fantasai> ... but the Call for Nominations is not rigidly scheduled. Only rigid schedule is the start of the term
<fantasai> cwilso: Realistically, we could drop this whole clause since it's up to the chair, and a reasonable chair wouldn't schedule something with a one-month term
<fantasai> cwilso: Realistically, we've gone different ways on this. E.g. when multiple people resigned to shift to the Board, held an election. When Florian and I resign, we didn't hold an election. [cites more history going back and forth]
<fantasai> plh: I'm hearing a suggestion to drop the clause entirely.
<fantasai> POLL: Should we keep some version of this sentence (vs drop it)?
<fantasai> cwilso: Ambivalent. Hints that should think about whether it's worthwile.
<fantasai> florian: Similar. No strong opinion. Some nudge might be helpful.
<fantasai> plh: My take is this is guidance, and guidance goes in /Guide
<fantasai> cwilso: I would prefer that
<fantasai> ACTION: cwilso to discuss with jyasskin
<TallTed> +1 given the way other things have been handled recently, this probably belongs more in the Guide
<fantasai> plh: Scanned the section, and indeed Call for Nominations is not scheduled