Mark Nottingham

For context, see: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-4.3 ... and some of the following sections.

From a reader standpoint, I think most will want to identify the relevant section by the type of group; that makes the document easier to scan. People don't often read...

Interesting. I think the most direct way to do this would be to process the concepts into `tags.json`; that file labels various things as groups (see the front page for...

Who evaluates the traffic lights? Is a red light automatically blocking? Modelling this as an extension of AC voting is not really workable IMO. The AC is near-dysfunctional in its...

The proposals so far seem to focus on surfacing more information to the AC, to inform any feedback/objections it makes. While that has the merits of an incremental approach, I...

@dwsinger if we do that, who's **accountable** for chartering decisions? Who will stand up and defend them and face consequences if they get it wrong? I.e., where is the identifiable...

This seems related to the issue(s) around using CGs for incubation. I think it's reasonable to have a somewhat streamlined process for handling objections (while still doing so properly, of...

First impressions: * Having the AB and W3M appoint 1/3 each of technical oversight feels like it's perpetuating existing power structures to avoid conflict ("all problems can be solved by...

@fantasai that presupposes that technical people can't make process decisions, and yet chairs do it all the time. To me, a more sensible arrangement would be to have the TAG...

> but I do think the TAG charter and selection mechanism need to substantially change for that work well. Big +1 to that. I tend to think that responsibility should...