RE: Some templates started [Was: Missing op agreement warning]

> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@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?

[Milan] The implication of your statement above is that one can communicate with the chair to learn of operational procedures if an op-agreement is missing.  The problem is that the chair has no requirement to hold to their statements, which would likely surprise the reader.  Thus, your statement 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 18:03:50 UTC