- From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:41:50 +0200
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
30.09.2014, 02:48, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>: > On 9/29/2014 2:01 AM, Stephen Zilles wrote: >> š[SZ] Note that section 6.2.6 of the current Process Document already says, >> š"A charter MAY include additional voting procedures, but those procedures MUST NOT conflict with the voting requirements of the Process Document. >> >> šA charter MAY include provisions other than those required by this document. The charter SHOULD highlight whether additional provisions impose constraints beyond those of the W3C Process Document (e.g., limits on the number of individuals in a Working Group who represent the same Member organization or group of related Members)." >> >> šSince the Director must approve all charters, I think your requirements are met. > > Given the second sentence (MAY include other provisions) allows > additional provisions, it seems that your proposal (allowing additional > participation requirements) is entirely unnecessary since that is > nothing more than an additional provision. So we appear to be in violent agreement that there is nothing necessary to leave, if we decide to remove the section on Good Standing, since the only thing we want to retain is already elsewhere in the document. Which reduces the question to "does anyone think we should not remove the section on good standing"? cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2014 11:42:21 UTC