- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:20:57 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
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. Philippe
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 18:21:51 UTC