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

On 7 Jan 2013, at 2:13 PM, Young, Milan wrote:

>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
>>  Note: By design, Community Groups have few process requirements. This
>> group does not (yet) have a charter that describes its decision process,
>>  and as a result, there is limited accountability in how the Chair reaches
>> decisions. The Community Group process affords greater protections
>>  to those groups that document their decision processes.
> 
> [Milan] A couple suggested edits:
>  * Delete your first sentence

Why? I think the second sentence makes less sense without the context. 

One could add context back this way:

   Note: This group does not (yet) have a charter that describes its decision process, and because of the lightweight CG process, there is limited accountability in how the Chair reaches decisions. 


>  * Replace "there is limited accountability in how the Chair reaches decisions" with "the Chair(s) have no obligation to consider the opinion of the members or maintain commitments."

Those are overly sweeping statements. There are, for example, licensing commitments over which the Chair has no say.

I prefer my version.

Ian

> 
>> A quick context reminder here: this text is a small patch. The primary change
>> we plan to make regarding accountability (as discussed in November [1]) is
>> around Chair selection.
> 
> [Milan] A small patch can still deliver a lot of information if it cuts the fluff and gets to the point.
> 
> If groups find the language objectionable (which I hope they will), they have an easy solution: adopt an op agreement.  They can choose from the present menu or cut/paste from another group.  We can give advanced notice to existing groups so they can avoid the warning appearing on their homepage.




--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447

Received on Monday, 7 January 2013 21:21:27 UTC