Mathematical Error in Composition of the AB section

[wareid]

I noticed there is a mathematical error in the "Composition of the AB" section of the process that creates a contradiction in the text of this section.

https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#ABParticipation

The Advisory Board consists of nine to eleven elected participants...

The terms of elected Advisory Board participants are for two years. Terms are staggered so that each year, either five or six terms expire.

Add to this our recent AB suggestion and Team practice around re-opening nominations for elections if the number of candidates does not equal the number of open seats, we run into a situation where it's impossible to have a 9 person AB due to requirements of the Process on number of seats to open and fill.

I think this is a simple wording change to say that AB terms are staggered such that at least half of the seats go up for election every year, but I leave wording to the discretion of the editors.

[frivoal]

The 9 (or 10) seats situation is possible due to https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#AB-TAG-elections, and in particular, the consideration that the minimum and maximum number of open seats for each election on the AB are different.

The maximum number is the 5 or 6 seats of the terms expiring that year, plus the number of other seats that are vacant or will be vacant by the time the newly elected members take their seats; the minimum number is such that when added to the occupied seats from the prior year, the minimum size of the AB (9) is reached.

Later on, we have this, which tells us how to use this minimum and maximum numbers:

If, after the deadline for nominations, the number of nominees is:

• Greater than or equal to the minimum number of available seats and less than or equal to the maximum number of available seats, those nominees are thereby elected. This situation constitutes a tie for the purpose of assigning incomplete terms. Furthermore, if the number is less than the maximum number of available seats, the longest terms are filled first.
• Less than the minimum number of available seats, Calls for Nominations are issued until a sufficient number of people have been nominated. Those already nominated do not need to be renominated after a renewed call.
• Greater than the maximum number of available seats, the Team issues a Call for Votes that includes the names of all candidates, the (maximum) number of available seats, the deadline for votes, details about the vote tabulation system selected by the Team for the election, and operational information.

So I don't think there actually is a bug. Whether it is particularly readable/discoverable is a different question, as is the question of whether we need this flexibility/complexity.

[wareid]

as is the question of whether we need this flexibility/complexity.

I think that is the answer then, if you need to read multiple sections to find the answer to the question, it might be too complicated. I would say then that there is also some contradiction/confusion between the text in in the Composition section and the AB TAG Elections section that could be resolved by eliminating the number in the Composition section in favour of something like "at least half" or whatever.

[fantasai]

I think the complexity here will go away if we end up adopting the change suggested in #949