Re: [Process] Should we adopt a waiting period on resolutions?

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I had assumed it was the opposite, but
this makes sense. Perhaps we can briefly discuss at the upcoming face to
face meeting. The issue based closure makes a lot of sense for simple
changes where we still want agreement, even if it is tacit.

On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, 6:58 PM fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

>
> On Mar 25, 2025, at 1:27 PM, Brady Duga <bradyduga@gmail.com>
> <bradyduga@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think we have previously had a vote on the call for specific
> resolutions, but not everyone is on the call and may miss important topics.
> This has largely been fine for the bug fix type issues we have discussed
> recently, but may not be inclusive enough as we start to work on
> bigger issues. I note that the CSS WG has been issuing resolution
> statements in the issue at github, which is CCed to the mailing list giving
> people 7 days to comment, or apply an emoji in support of the resolution.
> Should we adopt a similar process?
>
>
> Just wanted to clarify: the CSSWG takes resolutions two ways:
>
> 1. For most issues, we take a resolution live on a call or F2F discussion,
> typically after some amount of async discussion in GH.
> 2. For issues where we expect the resolution to be obvious and trivial, we
> sometimes take an async CFC over 7 days. This is the process you witnessed
> on-list. :)
>
> For 1, anyone can re-open an issue if they have something new to add to
> the discussion. There’s no statutory time limit.
> For 2, anyone can defer the topic to a live discussion by declining the
> async resolution. Or re-open the issue later with new info, same as for #1.
>
> ~fantasai
>
>