Re: Process CG Call for Consensus (CfC), responses needed


While reading through I noticed potential confusion over the authority 
the AB might delegate concerning evolution of certain documents.

I opened #388 to explain my concern and propose a solution.

While I would prefer that something like this proposed solution be 
adopted in this round I would not stop the presses to force it.



On 2020-02-13 04:26 PM, David Singer wrote:
> In the last call, those on the call had consensus that the document at <> is ready for the next steps and that the ProcessCG has taken it as far as it can.
> The next steps are
> * similar AB consensus at the upcoming AB face-to-face 25-27 feb
> * wider review by the AC in March
> * presentation to the AC at the upcoming Seoul meeting, discussion
> * adoption by the AC online (WBS)
> This is a formal Call for Consensus supporting the decision on the call: the Process CG sends it to the AB for the next steps.
> If you AGREE, please respond; expressions of support help us gauge the level of support.
> If you DISAGREE and believe that the ProcessCG is not done or the document should not advance as-is, you MUST respond to this email to have any impact (the default is to assume indifference or assent).
> The response MUST indicate +1/-1, or support/oppose the CfC, to be used.
> The deadline to respond is one week, end of business Friday the 21st Feb. (Before the AB meeting).
> Thank you.
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2020 20:16:53 UTC