W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2019

Re: Summary of TAG resolutions on Director-Free Process proposals

From: Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 08:45:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CALiHrgk-8UWda2ecsYfqwfYZWvj=b9pVyYJo5=Yovr8mwxGEVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sangwhan Moon <me@sangwhan.com>
Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
This is all getting very meta.

Here is what happened: Florian, David Singer, Fantasai and Jeff joined part
of a TAG meeting to discuss some AB proposals about the role that that TAG
could take ain a post-director W3C. Fantasi (very ably) led much of the
discussion and recorded the TAG's consensus view on the proposals as
"resolutions" on a white board. The resolutions represented the consensus
of the TAG. The ball is now in the AB's court to draft these into specific
text which can be incorporated into a future process document. The one
wrinkle here is that Jeff expressed some views on IRC during the discussion
which were not taken into consideration because we hadn't realized that
Jeff's connection had dropped and we were not paying attention to the IRC
channel. However, these issues Jeff raised can still be taken up in the AB
discussion that needs to happen to flesh out what came out of the
TAG/partial AB discussion into specific proposal.

OK?

Dan

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:24, Sangwhan Moon <me@sangwhan.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 16, 2019, at 7:22, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/15/2019 11:45 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>
> It is not clear to me that these were proper resolutions of the TAG since I had raised an issue with them, which AFAICT was not addressed.
>
> This is just meant to report the consensus of the TAG.
>
> Yes, I had understood that.
>
> My question was whether it indeed properly represented the consensus of
> the TAG given that an issue with that consensus was raised during the TAG
> discussion, but was apparently not even discussed.
>
> Just as a clarification, this was discussed but apparently not minuted.
> Nobody in the room considered this a serious issue, so we moved on.
>
> Apologies about that bit missing in the minutes.
>
> Sangwhan
>
Received on Monday, 7 October 2019 08:46:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:18 UTC