Re: Writing a CG charter

Hi all,

I think we're done drafting the charter, at
https://github.com/WebBluetoothCG/web-bluetooth/blob/charter/charter.md.
I'm going to wait 24 hours for anyone to pop up with concerns, and
then take a 30-day vote to adopt it. Please try to limit your concerns
to things that will cause us to deliver the wrong things, or cause
problems with delivering anything, instead of wordsmithing, if
possible.

Thanks,
Jeffrey

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com> wrote:
> Anssi, Wayne, and I have started to draft a charter for this community
> group, in the https://github.com/WebBluetoothCG/web-bluetooth/tree/charter
> branch. You can see the current draft at
> https://github.com/WebBluetoothCG/web-bluetooth/blob/charter/charter.md, and
> the branch also contains changes to CONTRIBUTING.md and LICENSE*.
>
> I'd like to invite pull requests against that branch and discussion on this
> thread.
>
> Once discussion dies down, I'll send a Call for Comments to this list to
> adopt the charter, and I'll ask everyone who's committed to the repository
> to explicitly agree to the new LICENSE file (the second is probably
> unnecessary for people who've joined the CG, but it's polite). When the
> charter is adopted, I'll merge it to the main gh-pages branch.
>
> ----------------
>
> Some questions about the content of the charter:
>
> * Is the Scope what we want? I listed channel-based Bluetooth as
> out-of-scope; should we also require a Charter change to add Peripheral
> support? Since the Use Cases document is the main definition of what's in
> scope, are there use cases we need to add before finalizing the charter?
>
> * The CG charter template
> (https://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Templates/CG_Charter) suggests
> particular numbers of days for various votes and calls for comments: 14 + 21
> days to select a new chair (if I go mad with power); 7-14 days to vote if we
> fail to achieve consensus; 30 days to amend the charter. These numbers seem
> long to me. Can we shorten them? Are they right as-is?
>
> * The Contribution Mechanics section is pretty strict about what's
> considered a contribution, to avoid general discussion on the mailing list
> or a github issue being misconstrued as granting patent rights. Is the
> wording there what we want?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeffrey

Received on Monday, 6 April 2015 23:07:52 UTC