- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:51:20 -0500
- To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- Cc: "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
On 10 Oct 2012, at 3:26 PM, Young, Milan wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] >> On 10 Oct 2012, at 1:26 PM, Young, Milan wrote: >>> I found Arthur's feedback on CGs [1] useful. In that statement he made 5 >> suggestions (labeled a-e) for content that SHOULD be included on a >> community's home page. I'd like to give my support to these suggestions, and >> further recommend that these become MUST requirements. >> >> Hi Milan, >> >> As mentioned in other threads, charters and operational agreements are >> considered good practice. I heard a suggestion for a charter template that >> groups can easily copy and modify. That's something we can easily do. > > [Milan] Simplifying the "paperwork" is an excellent first step, but it does not address my fundamental concern. I'd like to turn the question around by asking for reasons why we should NOT require a fleshed op agreement. Because there is not one model for CGs. The CG process is minimalist because we do not want to overconstrain groups. We should first try to see whether we can make progress through guidance and good practice. Where we need a rule, we should have the least constraining rule possible. For example, between a rule about "how a group changes chairs" and a rule "requiring publication of operational agreements," I would prefer the former. (Note: I am not arguing for the former here, I am just using it as an example to make a point). Why? Because there is a high cost to writing down operational agreements up front, especially if you are new to this sort of thing. On the other hand, there (I believe) a lower cost to a "chair change" rule because (1) by default nobody has to do anything! (2) such a rule could have a positive impact on chairing without imposing a particular operational model: if the group is unhappy (whatever their operational model) they can simply change chairs. By the way, strengthening the existing chair-selection procedures could be seen as only a small change to the existing process, which already says: "The participants of the Group choose their Chair(s)." Ian > What sort of opportunities would CGs miss with such a policy? > Are those opportunities aligned with the W3C mission statement? > > >> >>> Transparency is at the heart of voluntary good behavior. With transparency, >> communities will be more willing to offer principled terms [2] to attract >> membership. Without transparency, members will naively join in good faith >> (after all the W3C is a principled [2] organization), and later become victimized >> by "bait and switch" behavior (e.g. [3]). >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-council/2012Sep/0020.html >>> [2] http://open-stand.org/principles/ >>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Oct/0018.html >>> >> >> -- >> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ >> Tel: +1 718 260 9447 > > -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 20:51:23 UTC