Mark Nottingham

@othermaciej that proposal makes it worse. I'd suggest: > The Council's recommendations and suggestions are taken back to the body who made the decision which the Formal Objection was made...

If the group fails to address the underlying issue, surely there will be another FO when it attempts to execute a decision again?

I'm not so concerned with the effort to track your FO -- more in transparency in how the council ruling is applied. So there seems to be an assumption that...

@nigelmegitt agreed, that was a poor choice of words on my part. What I'm trying to say is that the group (or whoever decided it) needs to recondiser and form...

That may be implied and there may be a shared understanding of it, but it's not what's documented.

Characterising it as 'invalid' is odd - you have at least two people who are not unfamilar with the process reading something into it that you didn't intend, and Florian...

I don't think this is "invalid", but accept that it's editorial, and would be ok with it being deferred until the next process iteration.

> Hi Mark, I think you may be under a misapprehension. The statement track is not exclusive to the AB and TAG: it is a track available to any chartered...

Also, I'll emphasise that there's a fundamental difference between a process where the safeguards / consensus-balancing mechanisms are operating _during_ the document's creation, and one where they're inserted afterwards in...

Sorry, it's been a busy week and I'm recovering from COVID, so my capacity is limited. A few responses to comments since my last: @frivoal: >> That seems to establish...