Re: Call for Consensus: Please review the draft charter

On Monday, November 28, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:

> It would be useful to have the term "installable Web apps" in this document
> somewhere.

Will see if I can add it willy nilly :)   
>  
> Also, technically, this group doesn't need a charter. Nor does any
> Community Group. A scope statement is sufficient. The Community Group
> option is intentionally meant to be lightweight in terms of process, and
> for it to be fine to a CG to operate without a charter -- not feel like
> they are obligated to have one.

We know, except we got shared deliverables with Web Apps… we kinda need a clear process for IPR reasons and so we can track provenance of idea. Some members feel it's better to have this in the clear.  



> So in order to avoid setting a precedent for more heavyweight process creep
> into CG work, I personally would prefer that this document not be called a
> "charter", but instead something more like, say, "operating guidelines" or
> something.
>  


That's fine, will change to "operating guidelines" instead of "Process". The operating guidelines I've proposed are supposed to balance consensus (1 week CfCs) and the need to move quickly (some editorial powers, clear devision of labor, only one spec version, etc). If the operating guidelines are too heavy, please let me know where to trim some fat.

Received on Monday, 28 November 2011 10:36:33 UTC