Michael Champion

Sorry, I was just confirming Dave’s suspicion that I’m not part of the consensus on this topic. Since I don’t support the approach, I don’t support the implementation details. I’ll...

> , we have to decide what happens if terms end after a question has been brought but before a decision is delivered. It's orthogonal Agree it's orthogonal, and if...

Presumably we can't implement the director-less process until there is a Board of Directors that can hire/fire/discipline the CEO. So the topic of complaints about the CEO or their decisions...

> we can just close this issue with no change, and trust that the CEO will use sufficient caution in cases of discipline involving elected individuals, possibly referring to the...

The only way I can see to organize things going forward is: Membership ("stockholders") select the Board The Board hires/fires/disciplines the CEO and perhaps other key executives The CEO hires/fires/disciplines...

@jwrosewell , thanks for making it more explicit what all these issues are really about. Here's my personal take on all this: I got involved in W3C in the late...

"Monoculture" is more of a metaphor than a concrete description of a problem. I suggest the first step is to identify the VALUES potentially compromised by a spec driven to...

The threats to the Security value from single implementations are the most prominent examples of problems (e.g. SSH, https://www.zdnet.com/article/serious-security-flaw-found-in-openssh-puts-private-keys-at-risk/). Mitigation needs to be fleshed out in the Process or guidelines...

Good point; W3C can mandate that a maintenance plan exists on paper, it can’t force the WG members to stay engaged and follow it. An ongoing liaison between the W3C...

> Has the objective of demonstrating implementation experience fundamentally changed? What has changed is: - There is no engaged, expert, neutral Director to make the judgments the Process expects the...