W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2014

RE: w3process-ISSUE-109 (Unreviewed Charter Extension): Should AC approval be required to extend a charter [Process Document]

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:51:55 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
CC: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1409093515268.16074@microsoft.com>
The status quo of a WG staking out some space -- and committing W3C's credibility to it-- yet being given an essentially unlimited amount of time to come up with a viable spec is part of the overall problem we're wrestling with.  

> would it be prudent to have a suggestion at least that charters be formally reviewed once the 
> extensions have got to a certain length (e.g. 1 year, 1.5 years)?

I was thinking more like 6 months.  That would encourage people to make realistic estimates when drafting a charter, and would encourage WGs to be more date-driven.  If a WG does bite off more than it can chew, a recharter / AC review should help them focus on figuring out what they can realistically ship, by when.

________________________________________
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:26 PM
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group
Subject: Re: w3process-ISSUE-109 (Unreviewed Charter Extension): Should AC  approval be required to extend a charter [Process Document]

On Aug 26, 2014, at 5:58 , Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/19/14 8:59 AM, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> should we require an AC review or approval to extend a charter (sometimes, always, more than X amount of time)?
>
> Seems like it would be mostly `make work` to have a formal AC review if the length (of a WG's charter extension) is relatively short. As such, a formal AC review of a charter extension should only be done if the extension is on the long-ish side, say 6+ months.

I also think we can trust that the staff will push back on repeated extensions without review.  However, would it be prudent to have a suggestion at least that charters be formally reviewed once the extensions have got to a certain length (e.g. 1 year, 1.5 years)?


David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2014 22:52:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:11 UTC