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

Re: Charter / Process failure - Was: Re: FPWD: Discovery & Registration of Multimodal Modality Components: State Handling

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 14:04:22 -0700
Message-ID: <559C3ED6.9020401@linux.intel.com>
To: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Philippe Le H├ęgaret <plh@w3.org>


On 2015-07-07 06:06, timeless wrote:
> I reviewed [1] a recent document [2] was published under Process 2005 [3].
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Notifier <notifier@aries.w3.org> wrote:
>> Publication as a First Public Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
>> This document is governed by the 14 October 2005 W3C Process Document.
> I'm troubled by this. The MMI Charter [4] is apparently* from 2015
> [5], and it points to the general Process [6] not Process 2005 [3].
>
> I have a few asks:
> 1. Can we ask that Charters include a `Start Date` along with an `End Date`?

I've asked for this too.  It can be very difficult to figure out how 
long a Charter was in effect.  There should be a start date, the 
original expiration date and an extension date if it is extended beyond 
the initial expiration.

Currently, to try to find that you have to hunt through text for links 
and it isn't always possible.  It should be clear in the header how long 
it has been since the AC and Director Review of the Charter.


> 2. Can the Start/End Date section also include a `Previous Charter`
> link? -- currently it's buried in Charter Prose.

+1

> 3. Can the notifier/team somewhat actively police WGs trying to
> publish their first FPWD of their current charter after the new
> Process has been established? (Especially for groups [like MMI] that
> don't explicitly say they plan to operate under the old charter).
> 4. Can we ask that Charters be Public? (And if there are any other non
> Public charters, can they please be fixed...)
>
> thanks
>
>
> * In fact, it's totally unapparent that this it the case, I had to
> ask, and first I had to ask for someone to make the Charter public (!)
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2015Jul/0000.html
> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-review-announce/2015Jun/0007.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2013/10/mmi-charter
> [5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jan/0009.html
> [6] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2015 21:04:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 7 July 2015 21:04:52 UTC