At 09:42 PM 12/12/2001 +0800, James Seng/Personal wrote: > > > The decision to drop requirements is explained in the wg chairs > > > statement and is independent of your appeal. > > > > Chairs do not decide, they attempt to observe and correctly state the > > rough consensus of a working group. > >Of course. We proposed and we observe how the group see our proposal. As >I said, your objection is noted. We have also observed others reaction >to this, not neccessary on the mailing list.
I think that it is *very* important that any "reactions" be posted to the public list, especially if they are being used to form a decision as to what a "rough consensus" is on these matters <snip> > > > But your (and David) volunteer to take over as editor of >requirements is > > > also noted. Nevertheless, the value of requirements is lesser now >and it > > > is agreed in Salt Lake to drop the requirements. (Minutes will be > > > available soon). > > > > Face to face meetings do not decide, they reach (or don't) some >consensus, > > which the working group may (or may not) affirm, again, by rough >consensus. > >Of course. But members feedback to the wg chairs in the face-to-face >meeting, in corridor/bar converdation and in private emails is as >important as the mailing list. All these are feedback to the chairs on >the group rough consensus. > Again, I believe it is not appropriate for the chairs to determine "rough consensus" based on private communications - all should come from public input, not secret comments which can not be discussed in the open. Bill Semich
