W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

Re: process.next wish list

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:31:53 +0200
Cc: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <3A453602-62F5-4CD0-9AB3-BE45F1D08B1C@apple.com>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Hi Wayne

I don’t disagree with any of this.  Just one point, though:

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 0:02 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 2. Change the Process so a Working Group or Interest Group closes when the Charter expires.
> 
> A Working Group charter can be extended by an email from the Director extending it (subject to AC Appeal to override the extension).  A Working Group charter can be renewed by an AC Review and Director approval of a revised Charter.  If neither happen by the date the Charter for a WG expires, then the WG should close on the date of Charter expiration.   The current practice is that Working Groups with expired charters continue to work as if they have a charter.  That, in effect, removes the AC's ability to monitor and approve the continuation of Working Groups.  The AC can impact extensions and renewals, but can do nothing if WGs are allowed to continue operating without an expired Charter.  One negative consequence of this is that the policy for moving abandoned work to Community Groups requires that work be stopped on a specification.  In an expired group, what has happened is the group doesn't function, but it also doesn't close and release the specs.
> 

I agree it’s a bad situation that we have groups operating on expired charters.

But I think that we need to get much better at our practices before we make this rule change. It’s deplorable, but at the moment groups ‘run off the end of the pier’, let their charter expire, and only then start worrying about renewing it. If we were to introduce this rule today, when charter expiry is all too common, chaos and panic would ensue. I don’t want to be in the position of the forced closure of a WG that we all agree should have been re-chartered and still operating. That would be … embarrassing.

If we get to the point where charter renewal is normally dealt with in the two quarters *preceding* expiry, then I agree, a WG that didn’t follow that ‘normal practice’, or failed to get a charter agreed in that period, should indeed close.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.



Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 08:32:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 15 April 2015 08:32:30 UTC