Hi all,
On Feb 26, 2007, at 1:39 PM, James Craig wrote:
> I am not implying the uf group step to the deliberation
level of
> ISO or the W3C, but some issues should not be noted as
REJECTED by
> an individual, at least not without fair consideration
and voting.
> If this process exists, or if there is a process for
rejection
> APPEAL, it needs to be documented. If it does not
exist, it needs
> to be defined.
I agree. This issue has come up several times before, but
never seems
to have gotten traction. So (as part of my Lenten penance
 I've
finally decided to take the bull by the horns and put
together a
proposal for addressing the various governance-related
questions that
have been raised:
http:/
/microformats.org/wiki/governance-issues
This may not be a perfect solution, but I really feel we
need to do
*something*. If nothing else, hopefully this wiki page will
help
capture our current "best thinking", as well as
the pros and cons of
various concrete proposals.
I've also started capturing the "known" governance
facts at:
http://microf
ormats.org/wiki/governance
Hopefully someone can add links to any extant policies that
we
already have.
Best,
-- Ernie P.
P.S. Apologies if this isn't the optimal format, but I
haven't heard
anyone suggest a more constructive approach, and this seems
most in
keeping with how we resolve other issues.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
|
