- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:57:11 -0600
- To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Cc: public-council@w3.org
On 6 Dec 2012, at 2:19 PM, Wayne Carr 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. Coralie and I have started work on templates: http://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Templates Regarding language when there is no operational agreement / charter (Wayne, I note the request above to drop "operational agreement"), here's an alternative: --- Note: This group does not (yet) have a charter that describes its scope, deliverables, and decision process. While W3C recommends that CGs operate by consensus, this is not a requirement. In the absence of a charter describing the group's decision process, participants are encouraged to seek additional information (e.g., from the group's Chair). Groups that clearly document their practices promote participation, build trust, and avoid conflict that arises from differing expectations. --- I look forward to continuing discussion in January. Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Friday, 21 December 2012 18:57:14 UTC