> > The decision to drop requirements is explained in the wg chairs > > statement and is independent of your appeal. > > Chairs do not decide, they attempt to observe and correctly state the > rough consensus of a working group.
Of course. We proposed and we observe how the group see our proposal. As I said, your objection is noted. We have also observed others reaction to this, not neccessary on the mailing list. But my note is to explain the reason behind this proposal is has nothing to do with your appeal nor any indication of the editors conduct as you suggested. > > But your (and David) volunteer to take over as editor of requirements is > > also noted. Nevertheless, the value of requirements is lesser now and it > > is agreed in Salt Lake to drop the requirements. (Minutes will be > > available soon). > > Face to face meetings do not decide, they reach (or don't) some consensus, > which the working group may (or may not) affirm, again, by rough consensus. Of course. But members feedback to the wg chairs in the face-to-face meeting, in corridor/bar converdation and in private emails is as important as the mailing list. All these are feedback to the chairs on the group rough consensus. Your objection is noted. This is why it is "rough". -James Seng
