Re: Charter (was: Re: Discussions with plh)

On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 16:53 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> = Topic 2: Charter =
> We talked about the charter change.  Apparently, it was viewed as an 
> oversight and corrected as such.  After a brief discussion we both 
> agreed that the way forward was to first revert the charter back to what 
> actually was approved, and then we can work to resolve the overlap with 
> the XHTML2.
> If the charter isn't reverted in a week's time, I fully intend to start 
> pestering plh and/or reassess options on how to address the issue.

We reverted the change this morning. I left the other edits intact (such
as mailing list name additions). While I was at it, I updated the names
of the Chairs and Team Contacts as well (including Dan's affiliation).
Hopefully, this is not going to be controversial... There are certainly
other changes that need to happen but I understood from Sam that some
significant ones are on the way so we can look into deeper changes later
on (such as the milestones).

Originally, the deliverables on XHTML 1.x and HTML4 were in the HTML
Working Group charter but were removed and placed in the XHTML2 Working
Group charter, before Advisory Committee review, due to early feedback
on the draft charter. However, the scope section never got to be updated
to reflect that move and this got caught after the approval of the
charter from the Director. The change was done in good faith and
believed to be editorial. Clearly, the community feels it is not merely
editorial since it changes the scope of the Working Group and the W3C
Process is clear on substantive changes in group charters. As I became
aware of the issue, I decided that this wasn't a high priority item
either, despite the simplicity of doing the revert. It looks like I was
mistaken as well. The real issue here is around the future of XHTML
however. We now have two conflicting charters that both include work
around XHTML, with different meanings associated to it. That's an issue
we're aware of and still needs to get resolved given the confusion it
creates. Dan (and others) will rightfully keep poking me on this until
it gets resolved.


Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 18:21:51 UTC