- From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 19:56:10 +0000
- To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- CC: "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
> Note: This group does not (yet) have a charter that describes its scope,
> deliverables, and decision process. Groups that do not document their
> practices run a greater risk of disappointing participants due to different
> expectations about operations and decision-making.
> Given the lightweight oversight of these groups, the best guarantee that they
> will operate as the group expects is to have it formally written down.
[Milan] Let's consider the following scenario:
1) Individual wants to join a CG, and contacts the chair on the public list asking for decision making policies
2) Chair responds that no policy is in place, and polls the group to discover preferences
3) Group requests democracy, and chair agrees
4) Individual joins
5) Hot issue comes up and individual calls for a democratic vote
6) Chair responds that he/she is in charge and no such vote will take place
7) Individual escalates to Director only to be told "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence".
That's a scenario that is sanctioned by CGs. Do you think your note adequately educates potential participants to this risk?
Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 19:56:37 UTC