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: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:03:59 -0700
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <8A64BD5A-AA82-440E-B9DB-0765C3079145@apple.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>

On Aug 26, 2014, at 15:51 , Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

> 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.  

Yes.

I have argued before that matters outside the W3C’s control should not be factored into dates.  So, don’t start a WG until there is a draft or something that sets the technical direction — investigate in a CG, IG, BG, GG…and don’t set dates beyond CR (since it depends on implementations existing).



> 
>> 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.

As people note, any AC member can object to any extension, so formally it might not be needed.  Perhaps we need a statement like the 5% guideline — “Note that charter extensions longer than 6 months after the initial charter termination date before any extension, are subject to greater scrutiny and are less likely to be approved."


> 
> ________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2014 00:04:28 UTC

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