Re: Charter amendment proposal

FYI: As there were no formal objections to the below CfC, I've updated the
charter with the proposed amendments.

Best,

--tobie

On 3/6/12 2:52 PM, "Tobie Langel" <tobie@fb.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Following up on charter comments last week, here's the promised breakdown.
>
>The two main comments that we've received to date about the charter are
>questions on the group's concrete processes and clarification requests
>around testing.
>
>The former is mostly a question about the what versus the how. We went
>back and forth with this when drafting the charter and ended up deciding
>it was easier to concentrate on writing out aspirational goals in the
>charter and having another document that would describe how we're going to
>go about achieving those. This document is coming shortly.
>
>Concerning the tests, one of the goals of this CG is to accelerate
>interoperability and testing is a great way to do that. Conversely,
>duplication is a great way to prevent that and will be avoided at all
>cost. As described in the charter, tests that have a logical home will be
>contributed to it directly by the test's author. The charter's wording is
>confusing and we suggest amendments here:
>http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/proposed-charter-amendments-2012-03-06
>/
>. Quality of implementation tests are needed and the CG is a great venue
>for those.
>
>Finally and although that goes without saying, the charter does not
>currently indicate chairs have to respect consensus. We're also slightly
>amending the charter's last paragraph to fix that. Again see the proposed
>amendments.
>
>We'd like to get charter issues behind us as fast as possible. In keeping
>with that, please consider this a CfC with a one week deadline. Please
>limit your comments to strictly substantive issues and keep in mind the
>mantra of productive groups: "I can live with it."
>
>Thanks,
>
>Robin & Tobie
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 13:48:17 UTC