On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 10:34, Kevin Smith wrote: > The motivation in xep1 is that the outgoing Council members might have > not given public feedback, due to being on Council, but that they could > have feedback that should be taken into account. For the sake of two > weeks, I’m not sure it’s worth shortcutting giving that opportunity here.
I don't think the two weeks matters necessarily but everyone on the council now was previously a member and could have given feedback. If they didn't then, I don't see why being on the council would make a difference. Standing on procedure like this is one of the reasons we lose things around the time of the council transition and why things end up stuck in a loop and never moving forward. On the one hand, I will make sure that doesn't happen this time, on the other hand I don't like process for processes sake and am very dissapointed that we still can't move forward with this. I was very much hoping to get a final vote on this by the end of the year and with the holidays fast approaching I very much doubt that will happen if we put it through LC again. —Sam _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
