chaals

I think we're coming back to the topic from a different angle... > So to resolve lack of consensus you went directly to a vote? No. We discussed it for...

(@annevk among others may have a different memory or perspective on how this all happened, and I haven't read the minutes. We're talking about something like a decade and a...

> P.S.: Limiting the scope of FO Council (and thus the FO process) encourages objectors to cast their objections in light of the W3C Process, so "I do not like...

(I don't think the concerns overlap - because the way I see the Formal Objections to the TT charter is that it uses flexibility that was designed into the process...

> @dwsinger wrote > > but they will never be tight enough to be unerringly diagnostic, there will always be judgment calls. @palemieux replied > Sure... that is not incompatible...

I agree with @palemieux that team member's opinions can, and I believe occasionally do, push discussions strongly in one direction or the other. That said, the Team are required to...

@palemieux: > My proposal remains to narrow the scope of the team input to factual information to avoid the possibility that an opinion is provided which would result in the...

@jan-ivar wrote (_inter alia_): > How are members to prove "harm" and chairs meant to evaluate it? It seems impractical and not helpful to chairs. Subjective guidelines do nothing to...

Why can the bylaws not reference the Process doc and thus the AB? Also, how do the by-laws of the incorporated organisation become subordinate to a process document written by...

> the Consortium Members ... shall have the power, and shall have the exclusive right, to amend, modify, supplement, revise, and/or restate the Process Document pursuant to the terms of...