- From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:31:46 -0800
- To: public-council@w3.org
>> * 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 > Text from the process: "The person who first proposes a group may establish the group’s initial operational agreements. Thereafter, the Chair determines the means by which the group adopts and modifies operational agreements. The Chair must give actual notice to the participants of any material changes to the agreements. Participants may resign from the group if they do not wish to participate under the new agreements." So having a charter does not solve the problem of badly behaved Chairs because they can change the Charter. A warning saying a Charter prevents terrible Chair behavior would be incorrect. But encouraging groups to have charters is good for other reasons. And a charter could contain a process for amending the charter. Most Chairs would follow what the charter said. But it isn't the solution to the problem of badly behaved chairs and that should determine the no charter message. The simplest solution for bad chair behavior is the ability to remove the Chair. Text from the process: "The participants of the Group choose their Chair(s)." It doesn't have any detail. So I'd think the Community Development Lead would determine how to ensure the group has the Chairs they choose. I wouldn't want a warning about not having a charter imply W3C thinks the group can't choose the Chair, or somehow loses that ability after one choice.
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 09:32:14 UTC