W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2016

Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:54:23 -0800
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-id: <1529A6EB-2922-4A7C-B6B4-CAD39566EFD0@mac.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>

> On Dec 16, 2016, at 9:42 , Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> 
> On 16/12/2016 18:24, David Singer wrote:
> 
>> I assume (until we cut over to GitHub) you should raise an Issue.
> 
> Done; issue 176.

thx

> 
>> do you have a pointer?  it’s nice to have a “test case” or example
> 
> Last CSS WG charter. Optional incubation was added based only on 3+1
> votes to the Charter w/o discussion in the WG itself. Hardly a
> consensus, and hardly AC agreement. I don't disagree with the outcome
> but the way it happened is absolutely not normal, nor in the spirit
> of our Process.

Yes, I get it.  After Charter review, there is typically a discussion with those objecting (formally or not), and then the result is sometimes approved without being exposed again to either the WG or AC. 

I am not sure how best to handle this, but it worries me.

Dave Singer

singer@mac.com
Received on Friday, 16 December 2016 18:55:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 16 December 2016 18:55:02 UTC