- From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:26:49 +0000
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- CC: "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] > On 10 Oct 2012, at 1:26 PM, Young, Milan wrote: > > I found Arthur's feedback on CGs [1] useful. In that statement he made 5 > suggestions (labeled a-e) for content that SHOULD be included on a > community's home page. I'd like to give my support to these suggestions, and > further recommend that these become MUST requirements. > > Hi Milan, > > As mentioned in other threads, charters and operational agreements are > considered good practice. I heard a suggestion for a charter template that > groups can easily copy and modify. That's something we can easily do. [Milan] Simplifying the "paperwork" is an excellent first step, but it does not address my fundamental concern. I'd like to turn the question around by asking for reasons why we should NOT require a fleshed op agreement. What sort of opportunities would CGs miss with such a policy? Are those opportunities aligned with the W3C mission statement? > > > Transparency is at the heart of voluntary good behavior. With transparency, > communities will be more willing to offer principled terms [2] to attract > membership. Without transparency, members will naively join in good faith > (after all the W3C is a principled [2] organization), and later become victimized > by "bait and switch" behavior (e.g. [3]). > > > > Thanks > > > > > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-council/2012Sep/0020.html > > [2] http://open-stand.org/principles/ > > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Oct/0018.html > > > > -- > Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ > Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 20:27:16 UTC