Re: Charter Change should not be avoided if needed

I've made some changes to the Google doc [1], trying to address the
comments here as well as those made in the Google doc.

What do y'all think?

Thanks,

Dave


[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OKmYjSGRx7ttipWTmngGHQkJmxnrH2tcePFOb-gQ7Pc/edit?usp=sharing


On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Daniel Glazman <
daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:

> Le 06/02/2018 à 12:58, McCloy-Kelley, Liisa a écrit :
>
> > Regarding the SC and Daniel’s earlier comments, I want to point out
> > something.  The agreements and discussions from before the merger are
> > not gone. There is an agreement between the former IDPF and the W3C that
> > is separate from the group charters and that I know all of the former
> > board members and the W3C staff intend to honor. Continuing to have some
> > sort of steering committee was a part of that as well as finding ways to
> > help the former IDPF members find ways to work with and get value from
> > the W3C and publishing@w3c efforts. So though I am happy to discuss the
> > role and make-up of the SC as well as a revised charter for the BG, I do
> > not consider it to be an option to drop the SC.
>
> Let's look at the documents, then. The MoU between IDPF and W3C [1]
> states that
>
>    a Steering Committee of the Publishing Business Group (the “Steering
>    Committee”) shall be formed within W3C
>
> Item 6.b that governs the creation and mission of the SC does NOT
> state that the SC is "empowered to take any action on behalf of the
> Publishing BG". That was impossible to add since it would have violated
> W3C BG Process.
>
> That said, the Publishing BG Charter is, if I trust the revision log,
> last edited by Ralph Swick. And I am rather deeply surprised he did not
> react to the severe contradiction with W3C BG Process.
>
> Then the Transitional Publishing Industry Member Agreement [2] states
> that
>
>   The Publishing Business Group is governed by the W3C Community and
>   Business Group Process
>
> So you're right: the agreement includes a SC. I find it
> useless, and to be very clear, a temporary compensation to IDPF
> members and board that dissolved into W3C. Keep it if that's the
> consensus, but it cannot have a independent decision or veto power,
> that's against the Process; and that removes most of its substance.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2016JulSep/att-0064/
> Memorandum_of_Understanding_MIT-IDPF_9-28-16.pdf
>
> [2]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2016JulSep/att-0064/
> TPIAgreement-9-16.pdf
>
> </Daniel>
>