- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 00:45:58 +0900
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
> On Sep 15, 2019, at 8:16, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > > [dropping Process CG and AB] > > [adding back AB members who were in the TAG session] > > On 9/13/2019 5:21 AM, fantasai wrote: >> >> Topic: W3C Objection Decision Council >> >> RESOLVED: Council should pick its own chair, per issue, by consensus, >> falling back to a vote if that fails. (Goal is to choose a >> neutral chair for the topic.) >> >> RESOLVED: Chair must be a member of the Council >> >> RESOLVED: If FO not resolved in X days, chair MUST report status to AC. >> Report MAY be public. Suggest 90 < X < 180. > 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. I asked, for clarification, and these aren't meant to include the opinions of AB members. On points where AB and TAG disagree, we'll still need to reconcile this somehow, but it is good to know what the TAG has agreement about, at least as a starting point. When we try to reconcile, we will of course have to deal with the disagreements, and we'll probably need to talk to the TAG again about those. But I also hope that the AB will be find agreement with some of the TAG's resolutions, so that we can edit them into the proposal, and focus our next discussion with the TAG on just the points where there are disagreements. > First the issue. > > [...] > > Thanks for listening. I did read through what you said. Not dismissing your point, I think we'll need to come back to it. Just wanted (for now) to say how I understand these "TAG resolutions". For the discussion of your actual point, I feel it could happen in the archived list. —Florian
Received on Sunday, 15 September 2019 15:46:30 UTC