- From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:44:15 +0000
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- CC: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] [snip] > A process agreement is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for success. It's just a good idea for a lot of reasons. [Milan] Agreed, but that's not the subject of this thread. We are trying to come to resolution on the text which alerts potential participants to the potential dangers joining a CG that has no process. Our proposals must strike a balance between: * The potential severity of the danger. * The likelihood of the danger (agreed chair selection mitigates this danger). * The likelihood a potential participant would be aware of these dangers without our warning. * The impact to the CG which has been tagged with the warning (this impact is mitigated by the ease of the solution). Any other considerations?
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 21:44:42 UTC