Wendy Seltzer

-1 to adding all of this; I thought we had good out-of-process guidance.

I have proposed an update to the Guide to add more detail: PR https://github.com/w3c/Guide/pull/31 Issue https://github.com/w3c/Guide/issues/32 As has been discussed in the CG calls, the proposed change to Process would...

It seems we disagree strongly enough that we shouldn't aim this at Process 2019.

@chaals mentions the requirements of fairness and anti-trust above. While CGs are not currently under the W3C Process, they are subject to [CG agreements and process requirements](https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/), including openness, transparency,...

Allegations in a complaint are not proof. I hope that participants here can debate one another on the best ways to protect privacy, competition, interoperability, and other values without slinging...

@jwrosewell No, I don't see your citations as relevant to the discussions at hand, nor as reasons to interfere with technical discussion. Please stop opening and re-opening essentially the same...

Team practice is to send any changes proposed to a charter after review to all of the reviewers and to the member-charters-review list, asking whether any of these changes would...

re who's on member-charter-review? Any member who subscribes to it.

Talked with @fantasai about * sharing draft dispositions of comments as team is proposing changes to address them * with a list (cc, rather than bcc, +member-charters-review) of all who...

As the Strategy team is now responsible for bringing charters the the AC review and Director approval, I'd recommend that we iterate on this model before freezing it in the...