Set up AB-BoD liaisons #669
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
As noted in #668 I don't think this is a valid approach to resolve the issue :/ |
TallTed
reviewed
Oct 24, 2022
frivoal
force-pushed
the
AB-BoD-liaison
branch
from
be5779d
to
785aa16
Compare
TallTed
reviewed
Oct 25, 2022
TallTed
reviewed
Oct 25, 2022
frivoal
force-pushed
the
AB-BoD-liaison
branch
from
785aa16
to
07cdad7
Compare
frivoal
force-pushed
the
AB-BoD-liaison
branch
from
7c2006b
to
148a5b5
Compare
It can set expectations, but cannot constrain the Board.
frivoal
force-pushed
the
AB-BoD-liaison
branch
from
148a5b5
to
8f2582b
Compare
frivoal
added
Closed: Accepted
frivoal
added
Commenter satisfied/accepting
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The governance-tf resolved that there should be (up to) 2 AB liaisons to the Board, and this was part of the proposal approved by the SC. Given that the bylaws (deliberately) do no have any dependency on the Process, they cannot refer to the AB, which is defined in it, and thus they are silent about that.
The Process, however, should have no difficulty recording that. Here is therefore a PR to record the terms we got agreement about. This addresses #668.
To save anyone curious some digging around to find history, here's a record of some key places where this was previously discussed/proposed/defined/resolved.
The main governance-tf issue on this topic is https://github.com/w3c/le-governance/issues/25, which got closed as solved already by the so-called “simplified proposal”, which was itself adopted in a 2022-05-09 gov-tf resolution, and contains the basis for this PR.
Changes made to that “simplified proposal” later than this resolution do not modify that point, nor was it questioned since.
The gov-tf proposal, including the 2 AB liaisons, is described in the material sent for Steering Committee review on June 8, to which 5 of the 6 SC members have responded with +1s. The 6th SC member later responded with some amount of questions, none of which pushed back on this aspect.
Preview | Diff