On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 20:36, Caleb Sunstrum via SG21
<sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I'm not sure your interpretation of the level of apathy is correct. When I filled out that poll, I was answering about how important those things are *to me as a developer*.
>
> If a member of SG22 were to raise reasonable objections, I would absolutely listen to and consider them, because I recognize that what's important to me isn't the same set as what's important to everyone else.
>
> However, I do think that the direction of "we've made SG22 aware of what we're doing and have invited them to attend and provide their input" is the fair and balanced direction.
>
> If SG22 doesn't care enough to have people attend and provide feedback, then why should we care enough to send people to brief SG22 and wait for their approval before we continue?

SG22 is not a body that "cares" or doesn't. This is about
committee-member experts struggling to be on the right forums to be
able
to express their concerns. They have other avenues to voice their
concerns if they can't manage to be in early study group discussions,
of course, but the later those concerns are made known, the more
disappointing it will be for people who entertain foolish hopes
that if in a study group phase nothing bad happened to a proposal,
there's somehow a small likelihood that at later stages
"it would be a real shame if something happened to the very nice
proposal you have there".

And it's not a question of whether SG22 members care enough to give us
feedback. They do, and they have provided us with
feedback. Whether they do so in a SG21 meeting seems by and large
beside the point, because they have conveyed that
feedback over email. We should perhaps process that feedback, by
discussing the issues raised in the proposal that we have.