On 05/02/18 15:04, Tim Hollebeek via Public wrote: > I expressed concern about running other WGs in parallel with VWG since I > participate in all of them, but I can withdraw my objection with respect > to the Governance WG if that helps.
I think that having the Governance WG meeting on a plenary day is an excellent idea, as it will leave nowhere to hide for people with "late-breaking" additional feedback. In fact, if I were advising the Governance WG, this is what I would suggest they state: "The documents as they emerge from the F2F will be balloted immediately following the end of the meeting, in that state. Therefore, if you still think further improvements are required, you should come to the Governance WG meeting on <plenary day> with a clear explanation of the problem, concrete proposed textual changes, and a willingness to argue your case. A decision will be made there and then." We need to get this stuff balloted; we can't tweak it for ever. If the ballot fails, then we can move to another round of feedback. If not, we can always fix small things in follow-up ballots. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
