Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - another CWG Rec 6 Poll on Issue 5

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 September 2010 10:38, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:


> This is madness IMHO.
>


Then why are you -- or anyone else -- here on this WG?

This very group, itself, was assembled to provide the Board with advice on
an important matter which it is called upon to resolve. We may not be expert
on matters of philosophy and collective sensitivies, but we are involved in
the bodies that the Board needs to hear from, and we have offered copious
amounts of our time to research and discuss the issues.

We may not achieve consensus on everything. We may produce a report that
indicates issues on which consensus could not be reached. Does that lack of
complete consensus invalidate our work? Is the Vertical Integration group a
complete waste of time because of a seemingly irreconcilable divergence of
approaches? And even where we do achieve consensus, is the Board obligated
to accept all that we propose?

It's my understanding we have consensus that ultimate resolution -- on
contentious strings, as with setting policy to handle them -- rests with the
Board and nobody else. Even the fact that the Board is allowed to accept or
reject the experts' advice means that the experts are not resolving
anything, and that other influences may cause the Board to reject the expert
opinion.

- Evan