Re: [idn] Future of the requirements document

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

> > 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