Re: [charter-html] Using CfC for Decisions (#117)

The issue as recorded mixes and conflates a few things:

* "Announcing tentative decisions in the draft minutes (not even final) is not enough". "Not enough" for what? What exactly is the problem and please note the draft charter already explicitly
stipulates that all meeting minutes are provisional for 10 days after the minutes are announced.

* "any issue worthy of needing a formal decision is also worthy of a separate email, saying ‘Call for Consensus/CfC: xxx’". What does "issue" mean here? Is this github Issues, process issues, technical issues? My expectation is this group will use CfCs to record consensus for a variety of reasons and I don't think the charter should micro-manage/constrain how the group uses its CfCs.

* "Many people do not have the time to check draft minutes every week, but everyone deserves to be alerted of pending decisions. Also, even draft minutes are sometimes delayed. Please revise the policy to use explicit CfC notifications.". Please see the Decision Policy in the draft charter and the feedback above.

To help minimize the disruption of ongoing work in WebApps and HTMLWG, my expectation is those two groups will continue to use their existing mail lists as before, and a new list for the proposed group (say public-webplatform or public-webplatform-admin) should be created and the staff/chairs should make sure all meeting minutes are announced (f.ex. Cc'ed) on this new list (and (optionally) to the existing list). Of course this new list would also be used for group-wide CfCs.


---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/117#issuecomment-141117856