> On Mar 15, 2019, at 8:13, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > I have long thought that FOs on technical grounds that come “out of the blue” at late stages should be held to a higher standard. “Why didn’t you say something sooner?” I agree, but I would also put a slightly different spin on this. My observation is that interesting FOs tend to combine technical disagreement with some sentiment of not having been heard fairly, either because the letter of the Process got ignored, or because the letter of the process is fuzzy but the spirit seems (to the objector) to have been ignored, or because they feel the chair made an unfair determination as to what consensus was… On charters, we tend to get last minute FOs without prior warning, but I see that as a sign that we're doing a poor job of trying to establish consensus before the formal AC review, which should mostly be about confirming that we have reached consensus, rather than trying to establish it. Strengthening that is a topic for another day (which I do want to look into). But generally, with decreasing ability for Director to know the in-and-out of very topic given the ever larger scope, I think we should (continue to) support moving to a model where technical arguments are mostly not heard by the Director during FOs and instead belong to the Working Group, and FOs are mostly a means for call for a fair hearing when feeling you didn't get one. —Florian
Received on Friday, 15 March 2019 05:07:38 UTC