Re: Request for consensus to add text in the BLM statement

I've put the statement back on the wiki [1], hopefully with enough 
warnings to make it clear that it's draft/not endorsed etc.

It's wonderful that Kim is willing to help us with this!

To avoid wasting Kim's time, the constraint we're working with,is that 
we cannot make substantive edits (ones that change the meaning) of any 
part of the statement without returning it to the AC for another 4 week 
review.


So the focus is specifically on the sentence that is the proposed 
solution to the formal objection, and the subsequent edit that has been 
discussed here.


[1] https://github.com/w3c/idcg/wiki/Draft-BLM-statement

On 26/08/2020 17:27, Reid, Wendy wrote:
> That is amazing! I really admire her work. We previously had the 
> statement on the wiki as we were working on it, but I believe it was 
> taken down to avoid public commentary while it was still in its infancy. 
> I’m ok with posting it back up again or posting it into a GitHub issue 
> in order for her to make her comments. Alternately I could also add it 
> as a markdown document into the repo via PR, and comments/edits can be 
> made there.
> 
> I love the idea of making this a public learning opportunity. This 
> doesn’t necessarily fit into the process, (I’m predicting comments from 
> people more invested in process than myself), but this is an amazing 
> opportunity we really should take advantage of.
> 
> -Wendy
> 
> *From: *Tobie Langel <tobie@unlockopen.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 12:06 PM
> *To: *Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
> *Cc: *Inclusion and Diversity Community Group <public-idcg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Request for consensus to add text in the BLM statement
> *Resent-From: *<public-idcg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 12:05 PM
> 
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:35 PM Tobie Langel <tobie@unlockopen.com 
> <mailto:tobie@unlockopen.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:11 PM Léonie Watson
>     <lwatson@tetralogical.com <mailto:lwatson@tetralogical.com>> wrote:
> 
>         On 25/08/2020 23:58, Tobie Langel wrote:
>          > I would have suggested getting someone like Kim Crayton[2] to
>         review the
>          > statement, but I suspect there's no budget for this.
> 
>         Do you have any idea what their costs might be? I could try to
>         find some
>         budget if it isn't much. I'm still conscious of the time too.
> 
>     I have asked and will report back.
> 
> Kim Crayton is willing to review the statement pro-bono because—in her 
> own words—"the work of the consortium fundamentally impacts on the 
> overall health of the community."
> 
> She would prefer as much as possible of this process to be public so 
> that others can learn from it. Given this thread is public and so is the 
> GitHub repo, I imagine this shouldn't be too much of an issue.
> 
> She'd be available next week.
> 
> Let me know what you think and whether and how you'd like to proceed.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --tobie
> 

-- 
Director @TetraLogical
https://tetralogical.com

Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2020 16:47:30 UTC