Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 04/23/2011 08:31 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Delegating that power isn't really a possibility.   I think, the CWG can
>> make a recommendation in such situations with the expectation that the
>> board would generally take it and just rubber stamp it but the board can
>> ask for clarifications or override if necessary.  Similar to FPC and FESCo.
> The Board very specifically attempts to not involve itself in the
> matters of FPC or FESCo. In my time on the Board, I can't recall a
> single instance of "OMG, this packaging guideline has got to go!", or
> "FESCo didn't accept feature X, Board please help!".

That's because what board decides is usually escalated to the board and
the board doesn't have to spend time overriding decisions.  However
sometimes there has been overlaps.  I can dig up specific instances of
that happening but that would deviate from the point I was trying to make.

> Note that I said in my first mail (which some folks seem not to have
> read) that while people assume that the CWG is an appointed body (true
> today), they have completed (after this gets accepted with whatever
> modifications are deemed appropriate) the very limited set of tasks
> they were founded to do. As Kevin mentioned, the existence of, and if
> it continues to exist, the composition and selection mechanism of, the
> CWG is entirely open for debate.

More individuals committees to vote is going to just result in voters
fatigue.  It's already difficult to keep up (Board, FESCo, FAMSCo..). 
Adding more is just unhelpful unless there are very good reasons to do so.

Rahul