[wg-c] Re: vote?

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	I've been having some off-line discussions with Bob Broxton about this,
conveying my own thoughts that before the document can be presented as the
report of the WG, the working group must express its assent to it -- but
that that assent doesn't have to be expressed in a vote.  Rather, it seems
to me that the near-total absence of *any* statement in our discussions
that the document is unfaithful to our consensus, expresses pretty well the
group's assent.  In WG-C, we've used voting a lot when the list-based
discussion has shown that there's disagreement within the group, but it's
not clear from the discussion how numerous the forces are on each side.
This situation, though, seems different: Where the group's had the
opportunity for discussion and there doesn't seem to *be* any disagreement
with the contents of the document, I'm not sure that we need to ratify that
with a vote.  Further, FWIW, I think it would be valuable to the NC to get
at least a partial report from us at this stage of the process -- we've
been at this an awfully long time.

	That said, I really want to know what others think.  Not many people have
spoken to this, and those who have have been roughly divided:  Bob, Kent,
Bill and Mr. McCarthy have indicated that it would not be appropriate to
call this a "wg-c report"; Milton, Rod and William (and I) have indicated
the other view.  I'm happy to go along with the general sense of the group
on this one, whatever it is.  So let me know.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com