- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:28:31 +0100
- To: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
- CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On 13/02/2014 01:02 , Fred Andrews wrote: > Where in the documented you cited does it even permit the Chairs to > frame this question as a CfC? > Where does it permit the Chairs to declare that not responding will be > taken as support? Anything not forbidden by the Process is allowed; including naturally CfCs (which are common practice in supporting asynchronous decision making). This grants groups (and within groups, chairs) wide freedom to organise and operate as they see fit. This is on purpose. It makes it possible for groups to operate outside of any procedural straight-jacket and to pick the mode of operation most conducive to succeeding in their work. Altogether too often we forget this. Of course, this leaves the door open to all manners of things. A group could decide to arbitrate between two incompatible positions using the best-of-three in an air hockey game. One may have doubts as to the technical quality of the outcome, but it would be fine per Process. At the other end of the spectrum, participants could very well resort to assassination of dissenters. Arguably, this may run afoul of numerous legislative hurdles and it could be considered behaviour antisocial enough to warrant a mailing list exclusion warning. But it would be well within Process. Given that you are making Process-based objections while flaunting the fact that you do not understand the Process, I would recommend transitioning at least some of the way from cocksure to full of doubt. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 09:28:42 UTC