meg ford <> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Alexandre Franke <> wrote:
>> Did you mean to quote a specific part of Allan’s email? Because my
>> email was about what happened during the time when discussions were
>> still within the WG (and the conflict that emerged from it) and yours
>> is about what happened after that, so you replying to my email this
>> way is misleading.
> That's actually not true. Allan was saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Allan) 
> that he and Neil finishing the final draft without Ben was "direct response to
> repeated unacceptable behaviour on Ben's part." By that point in time Allan, 
> Ben and Neil were the only members of the group who were active. In my email 
> I was saying that most of us became inactive in response to the atmosphere in 
> the working group, before Ben was excluded from the final drafting.
> In addition, I was saying that I don't agree with Allan that Ben was the only 
> member of the working group who was not included in the final drafting (both 
> before and after the time that the discussions were still happening within 
> working group). I can't speak for other WG members, but I was not included in 
> the discussion surrounding the final drafting process that Neil and Allan 
> completed. The only time I have seen the final draft has been as a member of 
> the Board.

It's true that saying who was or wasn't included does get a bit tricky
due to the fact that not all members of the WG have been active all
the time. My view is that Ben, Neil, Nuritzi, Rosanna and myself were
the "active" members of the group at the point we published the draft
for community consultation, since these were the people who were still
attending meetings.

When I stated that the members of the WG were able to review the draft
as part of the board group, these were the people that I was referring

foundation-list mailing list

Reply via email to