Re: Charter Change should not be avoided if needed

Le 05/02/2018 à 17:10, McCloy-Kelley, Liisa a écrit :

> As a new Co-Chair of the Business Group and a member of the IDPF board
> that became the original Steering Committee, I am trying very hard to
> understand what in the charter people would like to see revised. I think
> we all agree we want to keep the charter and the execution thin.

I have no expectation of that kind ; I want a Charter that allows work
and execution, in a workable organization scheme. Thinner the better,
why not. But if we need thickness to have excellence, so be it.

> But as of yet, there have been no specific proposed changes in this
> dialogue.

Really? I highlighted in my last messages several excerpts of the
Charter that are either:

  - blatantly violating the W3C Business Groups Process
  - raising a unprecedented (in W3C space) governance issue for the CG
  - apparently triggering a change consensus in the BG

All the very concrete following proposals were also made:

  - the SC has to be deeply reformed or better, dropped. I think
    Murata-san has the same opinion but I'll defer to him on that one.
  - the handhold on the EPUB3 CG must be dropped. The prose in the
    Scope section that reads "The EPUB 3 Community Group requests
    approval from the Publishing Business Group for publication of all
    CG specifications other than Editor's Drafts" must be dropped.
  - I suggest to make EPUB3 CG chairs and PubWG chairs de facto members
    of the BG
  - I suggest to make them formally liaise with and in the BG, through
    its Charter, and with W3C Staff in the loop.

I think the above easily counters your "no specific proposed changes".

Furthermore:

  - I suggest to add an item that reads the BG can immediately modify
    its Charter through membership consensus w/o formal objection.
  - I suggest to adhere more to W3C Process and W3C common practice.
    The BG does *NOT* adhere to them at the time being.

> For me, much of the charter reflects the interim state of when the IDPF
> first joined the W3C and describes how we were planning to get this work

No. The Charter is the Law of the BG, it *governs* the BG until it is
amended. It's like a Standard: a Standard is a Standard until a new
Standard that supersedes the old one is published. The BG *cannot* work
around it, period. The current "election" and the proposed terms are
a workaround. They're forbidden by the Charter. Conclusion: amend the
Charter.

> So is it just a matter of changing the Process section to more
> accurately reflect the proposal and the way we are working now?

As I said above, the Scope section should be changed too.

</Daniel>

Received on Monday, 5 February 2018 17:16:20 UTC