Closed TallTed closed 3 months ago
I would suggest removing that note altogether. Assessing consensus of the AC through AC Reviews is well defined, and does not rely singularly on the CEO. More over, I don't believe we really have any process that relies on assessing the consensus of the AC other than through AC Reviews.
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed #875
, and agreed to the following:
ACTION: plh to check with the CEO
_Originally posted by @TallTed in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/614#discussion_r934935702_
Lines 1958-1959 of
index.bs
currently read something close to —— or —
COO
is probably being removed from that text, via an issue-less PR from @tantek, which brought me to notice that the rest of that sentence doesn't quite agree with itself.As I said there, I think that
have the role of assessing consensus
should be eitherhave the role of consensus assessor
orperform the task of assessing consensus
, because as it stands, the role they have is not a role, but a task, which makes little sense.@tantek wanted to keep that PR-without-an-issue focused on the deletion of
COO
, so I'm creating a new issue for discussion of the rephrasing I feel was and will remain necessary, regardless of PR #614's fate.