Post #1912302

2026-01-15 17:26 UTC

@darius @evan @julian The CG decision policy, ie the group which ostensibly decided to approve a charter, *requires* the chair be elected. The CG Chair has not been elected ever. And yet we are talking about what the CG has decided by consensus as determined by a completely different policy than the CG charter's decision policy requires. It's so clear an outcome was decided and all process that made that inconvenient is ignored, so I just can't let this misinfo spread that process requires WG.

Replies (2)

@bengo@mastodon.social 2026-01-15 17:28

@darius @evan @julian And I'm extremely disappointed in w3c staff for completely disregarding and failing to enforce the charter, and moreso in leadership in our community for failing to even have a decision policy (some in fact originally arguing against having one), later agreeing to one, and then ignoring its requirements when inconvenient.

Open ##1912303
@evan@cosocial.ca 2026-01-15 22:57

@bengo @darius @julian I'm not sure the charter says that the Chair ever has to be elected. "Participants in this group choose their Chair(s) and can replace their Chair(s) at any time using whatever means they prefer." After adopting the charter, we never changed the Chair -- he just stayed in place. I agree that it's well past time for us to have an election, but I don't see where consensus can only be evaluated by an elected Chair. What am I missing?

Open ##1912305