chaals
commented
2 years ago As noted in #668 I don't think this is a valid approach to resolve the issue :/
Closed frivoal closed 2 years ago
chaals
commented
2 years ago As noted in #668 I don't think this is a valid approach to resolve the issue :/
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