chaals

I don't think it makes sense to have the CEO on the review board. Proposals that can get a formal objection are made in the name of W3C. While many...

@frivoal noted above > However, getting to formal consensus in these groups is typically very time consuming even when we do agree > ... > Also, note that the existing...

I'm glad you think it's nice. Feel free to take it and shake it into something like the second diagram you think we should have (I agree we should, but...

There is no deadline between the 90-day "initiate the formation" and the council starting to work. What does "initiate the council" mean? an internal mail saying "we'll need a council"?...

> If this seems to be the right direction I will add the "after minutes are posted" one used by GPU and WebPerf. It's the right direction. Rather than "after...

There are already several processes to do this - the set up of groups including charter reviews, the facility for appeal of decisions, the ombuds structure that provides a general...

It does relate to #279 IMHO, but I think the two can be dealt with separately.

I would suggest that a super-majority of AB members and a super-majority of TAG members is required to sustain a formal objection. By supermajority I mean something like 2/3 majority...

I still agree that a 2/3 majority requirement is reasonable. A Formal Objection is asking to overturn something intended to approximate consensus, and the playing field **should** be heavily tilted...

@nigelmegitt asked > @chaals your suggestion means that if around half the members are recused then the formal objection can never be sustained, because the supermajority cannot be achieved. Is...