[cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

[Gervase Markham]

On 05/02/18 15:04, Tim Hollebeek via Public wrote:
> I expressed concern about running other WGs in parallel with VWG since I
> participate in all of them, but I can withdraw my objection with respect
> to the Governance WG if that helps.

I think that having the Governance WG meeting on a plenary day is an
excellent idea, as it will leave nowhere to hide for people with
"late-breaking" additional feedback.

In fact, if I were advising the Governance WG, this is what I would
suggest they state:

"The documents as they emerge from the F2F will be balloted immediately
following the end of the meeting, in that state. Therefore, if you still
think further improvements are required, you should come to the
Governance WG meeting on <plenary day> with a clear explanation of the
problem, concrete proposed textual changes, and a willingness to argue
your case. A decision will be made there and then."

We need to get this stuff balloted; we can't tweak it for ever. If the
ballot fails, then we can move to another round of feedback. If not, we
can always fix small things in follow-up ballots.

Gerv