Re: Assessing consensus and our voting process

Quoting Henry Story (2023-07-10 17:27:34)
> 
> 
> > On 9. Jul 2023, at 21:18, Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Kingsley, Nathan, Jonas, Melvin, Ruben,
> > 
> > Thank you for stating your preference. I’ll wait a few more days for this thread to circulate and settle. At that point, if nobody objects, I’d be ready and comfortable to move forward with lazy consensus.
> > 
> > First, voting on the Solid WG handover. Second, voting on my editing. Then the part that I am actually interested in starts - editing the consensus report itself! I’m looking forward to that.
> > 
> > Some of you believe all this to be too much formality. To those I say, I appreciate your indulging me even more. Believe it or not, I’m ordinarily not one for formalities myself. However, a little formality goes a long way in guaranteeing that an interested party will be able to understand the process behind any specific decision in 1 or 10 years from now.
> 
> I am -1 on this.
> For the simple reason that it is based on false premises, which I explained in an earlier e-mail today that is archived here: [1]

[...]

> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jul/0050.html

Henry, you are confusing things here:

The vote for lazy consensus was done *independent* of the premise (false
or not) of you being inactive.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private