David Singer

@vfournier17 that's the problem we are struggling with; charters are adjusted after the ballot, to respond to comments. But we're not very clear as to who to recirculate to, to...

Thanks for Florian's detailed exposition. Do we need a formal update to the Process document?

see #28 which points out that in 7.1.2 the requirements on "substantive changes" in a charter links to the definition of "substantive changes" in a Rec., which is not the...

see also #131 , super-majority for appeal. we'll track this bug as being the good-standing/voting-criteria question. see the questions at https://www.w3.org/wiki/Process2018#.2348_The_appeals_process_doesn.27t_actually_describe_how_an_appeal_finishes_2

I think that the team is graceful in allowing small mistakes and omissions in nominations not to cause them to be discarded. Do we need to encode this, or is...

We'd like suggestions for small textual changes to clarify what the team can fix after the deadline (not including the deadline itself).

I'm aware of [issue 131](https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/131); I am concerned that there may be circumstances that we currently don't imagine, in which deferral to someone else is appropriate, and that no, or...

The AB agreed at the August F2F

@jwrosewell I agree, it would, but thinking about it, I don't think we should use supermajority. If a _majority_ of the Council feels that the Council should not make a...

Change >Decision of the W3C Council should be unanimous. If despite careful deliberation the W3C Council is unable to reach consensus, the Chair of the W3C Council may instead resort...