DC Dogs replied to a comment in the following document At-Large CPWG Process for Comment (https://docs.google.com/document/d/13EjNxqfOvXGToCWLZi9-crsUSKvqnfdW57JF9drh...) Eduardo Diaz This a process for everything we do, however, in the context of the CPWG the process should be narrowed in scope to policy issues only. So, if this graphic is going to be part of the charter I suggest that it shows only that part that pertains to the CPWG scope which is policy. Bastiaan Goslings This whole diagram looks to me like a detailed description of the 'Develop position/action in the '3. CPWG Ingest process' funnel. If so maybe an explicit referral would help to avoid confusion. Maureen Hilyard This provides good guidance for the development of how the CPWG (and its charter) fits into the At-Large PDP process. I like the expectation of involvement of the RALOs Ricardo Holmquist I have a "trouble" with this graphic, for me some of the steps are in parallel, not one after the other. For example, the RALO part does not need to be after the Penholder or the CPWG Discuss, hence narrowing its discussion, when a RALO might have a opposite position or a different view. As for the question of Ed, this graphic needs to be in conjuction with the inverted pyramid where his comment is included. Nadira Al Araj Yes, RALOS 3 boxes can be replaced by one box that says something in this regards: (RALOs are encouraged to respond to surveys developed by CPWG) DC Dogs I think the manner and circumstances in which we involve the RALOs will continue to evolve so it's meant to be general at the moment. It might be surveys or it might just be the active participation of RALO leaders. Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA You have received this email because you are a participant in this thread. Change () what Google sends you. You cannot reply to this email. View At-Large CPWG Process for Comment (https://docs.google.com/document/d/13EjNxqfOvXGToCWLZi9-crsUSKvqnfdW57JF9drh...) to reply.