- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:48:35 +0200
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 21/06/2016 07:59, Stephen Zilles wrote: > I would suggest the following: > > "Within one week, the Team MUST announce the appeal to the Advisory Committee and provide place for the Advisory Committee representatives to respond with (1) a statement of support (yes, no or abstain) and (2) comments, as desired. The archive of these responses MUST be Member-visible." > > I believe that this clarifies the requirements for responding without either defining what mechanism is to be used to seek the responses nor over-specifying what the Team must do. In particular it would allow a WBS to be used as long as it had a comment field. That is a perfectly viable compromise, addressing my concern. Thank you, Steve. > One interesting sub-issue has to do with the announcement of the appeal. Should that use (or at least include) the text that that appellant provided to with his appeal request? I think it should certainly include the appellant's text, but may also have information provided by the Team. Excellent question, indeed. As I said, that prose was rather severely underspecified. </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2016 06:49:01 UTC