Re: Re closing of issues and WG support

if you mean
chairs should be empowered to close issues unilaterally using their own judgement when they feel the issue is closed, without having to bring each item up for WG vote — I would agree.  They have shown great deference in bringing anything to the group that they think the group would like to weigh in on.

There are so many issue though - that I think a great way to do this would be through what is called “consent calendar" or "unanimous consent" items” in the US legislature.  
Each session starts with a list or package of noncontroversial items (bills, resolutions, amendments, etc.). Unless someone objects, they are adopted without debate. If even a single member objects, that item is removed for regular consideration, while the rest can move forward.

That would be a great way to dispense with editorial or other non-controversial items

I would say however that it would be good to ping the person who brought the issue forward as part of the process though so they are aware that their suggestion had been accepted/modified/rejected. 

G 


> On Sep 10, 2025, at 1:42 AM, Hidde de Vries <hidde@hiddedevries.nl> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> In Chuck's email “AGWG:  Please review proposal to close Silver issues” we are asked to support closing of a set of issues.
> 
> I wanted to open a bit of a meta discussion, hence a new thread.
> 
> As an AGWG member, I appreciate being given this opportunity, but I would propose we change the default for closing issues, such that issues can be closed without requesting WG feedback. 
> 
> Personally, I would trust our chairs, editors and others with issue-closing rights to close issues as they see fit. They, unlike me, have the best context to make such decisions, and can describe that in the closing comment of the issue.
> 
> I don't feel this would jeopardise individual WG members' ability to show they disagree: we could even build that in explicitly and decide that a request to re-open is honoured by default. Many other groups within and outside W3C close issues this way, and GitHub allows for it well, as it shows who did the closing and invites the closer to write a comment that explains.
> 
> In other words, I would like us to change to issue-closing by default, with the invite to easily reopen if desired, instead of the current process where the WG is asked for support beforehand.
> 
> Those are just my two cents, I am curious to hear the thoughts of other WG members and chairs,
> 
> Best,
> 
> Hidde de Vries