On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Gervase Markham via Public < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > Respectfully, I think this is a somewhat terrible idea, as shown by every time the Forum has done something like this. I appreciate the sentiment towards getting it out, but I also think it's worth highlighting that the failure to carefully review things - or to allow time for that - especially for something as significant as an IP-affecting change - has consistently harmed the overall productivity of the Forum.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
