-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 133
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Relax the criteria for short-circuit #885
Conversation
A high bar for support remains needed, and any dissent remains sufficient to defeat the short-circuit proposal, but unanimity is no longer required. See w3c#852
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hopefully clarifying language tweak
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The intention was to reduce the threshold to allow people to be absent (e.g. on vacation or whatever), not to introduce the option of abstaining, so I think we shouldn't say that it's possible.
Co-authored-by: fantasai <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
A high bar for support remains needed, and any dissent remains sufficient to defeat the short-circuit proposal, but unanimity is no longer required.
See #852
Preview | Diff