Re: Next steps with the BLM statement

You are quite right about the exclusion issue. On the other hand, speaking  
for some group without their participation is at the root of why we are  
still discussing this topic, so I think we are stuck with having to wear  
the administrative overhead :(

That being the case, I think your approach is as good as can get in  
practical terms - thank you.

cheers

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 03:04:26 +1100, Léonie Watson  
<lwatson@tetralogical.com> wrote:

>
> On 10/11/2020 15:20, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>>  On 11/10/2020 10:08 AM, Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile wrote:
>>>
>>> I also think it would be good to have this conversation with the AC,  
>>> perhaps in parallel to the one in this group. They (rightly) are the  
>>> people we are asking to endorse the statement, and without time  
>>> pressure I think it is important to include them in the discussion  
>>> early...
>> +1
>
> Having two parallel conversations in different places is an  
> administrative overhead, and it automatically excludes people from one  
> or the other conversation which makes it much harder for everyone.
>
> I've posted an issue based on my original email and I'll email the AC to  
> let them know it's there and encourage their participation in the  
> discussion.
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/idcg/issues/34
>
>
>
> Léonie.
>>
>


-- 
Charles "chaals" Nevile
ConsenSys Lead Standards Architect

Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2020 13:59:47 UTC