- From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:20:39 +0000
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- CC: "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] > 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. [Milan] This proposal suggests statements from the chair (public or private) are substitutes for an operational agreement. Since the W3M does not have a track record of enforcing commitments from the chair, this is misleading. Additionally, this proposal does nothing to warn readers of the unprincipled dangers that could lie ahead. We must clearly differentiate between the mainstream axioms of the W3C and the allowed behavior of CGs that lack an operational agreement.
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2012 21:21:07 UTC