Proposed updates to AG Decision Policy

For people not routinely picking up surveys from meeting agendas, I want 
to draw attention to a proposed update to the AG WG decision policy, 
which is in a survey at:

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ag-decision-policy-update/ 
<https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ag-decision-policy-update/>

This affects everyone in the group, not just people who participate in 
teleconferences and success criteria review. The key additions:

  * People need to have participated in discussions leading up to a CfC
    if they plan to object to the CfC. A CfC should not be used to raise
    additional discussion unless unavoidable. (The policy does not
    require you to have participated in discussions if you were
    temporarily unable to participate, for instance because of illness
    or vacation - those are reasonable reasons not to have raised
    concerns during a fast-moving discussion, but should be exceptional
    situations.)
  * Clarify that concerns must be raised in the group's public channels
    so other participants can respond during discussion.
  * Require additional context for objections, including proposed
    alternate path and reasons the objection could not be addressed
    during discussion prior to the CfC.
  * Provide more information about how chairs will handle objections in
    various circumstances.

These proposed changes to the decision policy are not a change of 
practice. They simply provide explicit clarification of practices for 
decisions.

Michael