- From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:54:23 -0800
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
> On Dec 16, 2016, at 9:42 , Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > > On 16/12/2016 18:24, David Singer wrote: > >> I assume (until we cut over to GitHub) you should raise an Issue. > > Done; issue 176. thx > >> do you have a pointer? it’s nice to have a “test case” or example > > Last CSS WG charter. Optional incubation was added based only on 3+1 > votes to the Charter w/o discussion in the WG itself. Hardly a > consensus, and hardly AC agreement. I don't disagree with the outcome > but the way it happened is absolutely not normal, nor in the spirit > of our Process. Yes, I get it. After Charter review, there is typically a discussion with those objecting (formally or not), and then the result is sometimes approved without being exposed again to either the WG or AC. I am not sure how best to handle this, but it worries me. Dave Singer singer@mac.com
Received on Friday, 16 December 2016 18:55:01 UTC