- From: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 21:50:04 +0100
- To: public-council@w3.org, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "Young Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 21:19:46 +0100, Wayne Carr
<wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> I'd prefer:
>
> !WARNING! - This Community Group has not adopted a Charter. W3C
> recommends that CGs create a Charter that defines the group's scope,
> deliverables, schedule, and the decision making process. Without a
> Charter, participants may not understand the rules under which the
> Chair is operating the CG.
>
>
> I think "Operational Agreement" should be replaced with "Charter" in the
> cg/bg process. I think the term "Operational Agreement" is causing
> confusion. Everyone knows what a group Charter is. An operational
> agreement sounds more contractual, like it could require you have to
> sign some other contract to participate.
A quick note to say that using "charter" would nicely dovetail with my own
action item to come up with a template charter for Community Groups.
Coralie
[...]
--
Coralie Mercier - W3C Communications Team - http://www.w3.org
W3C/ERCIM - B219 - 2004, rte des lucioles - 06410 Biot - FR
mailto:coralie@w3.org +33492387590 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 20:50:13 UTC