On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 8:55 AM Simon Tournier <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Greg and Gabriel, > Hi all, > > Short message because while traveling I dont have a reliable internet > connection and I'm on mobile phone. > > Being offline for couple of days (traveling), then I just check out my > emails... Bang! > > Wow. > > Can we take two steps back? > > 1. Greg, your comments are very unwelcome because they must be discussed > during the Discussion Period. Not at the end.
I was requested twice to explain my disapproval, and I felt these multiple requests were impeding the deliberation period, so I responded with a summary of my comments from the discussion period. I had not expected the author to respond in this manner, nor you. As I explained, I would rather have continued this discussion after the conclusion of the deliberation period on the 11th. > If you feel in good faith the consensus had not been reached, the first thing > is that you self-reflect on your own contributions. Throwing stones from our glass house, are we, mister "supporting" sponsor waiting until the eleventh hour to provide constructive criticism to the author. You created the GCD process! This GCD was edited until the very last day of the deliberation period, a period that the author can terminate at any point during the second thirty day window. > You are blocking the process but it's hard to read your contributions to the > document. Maybe I've overlooked them. As Noé pointed it out, when > disagreeing, you have a special responsibility for finding a way to resolve. No one is blocking the process. The votes will be tallied and also measured against the 25% quorum. The responsibility is on the author(s), with the help of the supporter(s), to navigate to consensus. With this GCD there was nothing on which to find consensus. Name one substantive change made here! It's all hot air. Stop the personal attacks and discuss the topic.
