> On Mar 15, 2019, at 22:08, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > > Ordinarily W3C does not confer status without a formal CfC of a WG. That's not true. What we need is a WG resolution. Whether these are obtained through a CfC, a synchronous decision, or something else is up to the work-mode defined in the charter and the Chair(s). > I'm proposing that for ERs we do not require a formal CfC, relying instead on procedural consensus. Maybe I misunderstand what is being meant by "procedural consensus", I don't see why it needs to be any different for ERs. There should be consensus, and that should be established using whichever way the WG normally establishes consensus. I think you're trying to bundle getting more efficient at publishing (which is what I believe ER is about), with getting more efficient at reaching/recognizing consensus, which seems like a completely orthogonal topic, and one which I don't believe is a source of concern in general. There may be some people who dislike the way some WGs declare consensus, but that's a chairing / chartering issue, not a Process issue. —Florian
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2019 08:52:09 UTC