Re: Call for Consensus: Please review the draft charter

On 11/28/11 5:20 AM, ext Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.

I can understand that perspective if a CG is effectively a discussion 
group. However, for this CG, where a focus is writing specs that will 
eventually go to the Recommendation track, I think using term 'charter' 
makes sense because effectively, that is what Marcos created and it is 
applicable.

That said, I don't feel strongly enough for this to be a blocking issue.

Received on Monday, 28 November 2011 12:02:12 UTC