- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:12:08 -0600
- To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- Cc: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
On 26 Dec 2012, at 3:20 PM, Young, Milan wrote: >> 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. What is misleading? Ian > 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. -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Thursday, 27 December 2012 01:12:22 UTC