Re: JWOC charter

Hi Kerry,

Le 22/09/2017 à 09:41, Kerry Taylor a écrit :
> https://w3c.github.io/sdw/jwoc/
>
>
>
> Some comments on the proposed charter from me. I have not managed to
> catch up on all the discussion leading up to this, so please forgive me
> if I am raising old questions.

Just to clarify the status of this proposed charter: it has been 
reviewed by the W3C Membership and by W3C Management, and I'm working 
with the Comm team to announce the final decision, most likely at the 
same time as we will announce the closure of the Spatial Data on the Web 
Working Group.

So, while it's not entirely too late to incorporate minor changes into 
the charter, I'm afraid it is too late for major changes.


[...]
> 1. It seems odd to me that SSN has been left off section 2.1 . I note
> that for OWL-Time we have “This is a joint W3C Recommendation/OGC
> Standard for which the JWOC will handle any errata arising but for which
> no further work is envisaged.”
>
>
>
> Surely it makes sense to mirror the same for SSN (notwithstanding the
> reference to SSN further down)?

Jeremy noted that as well. I believe that is a mistake, it should indeed 
also appear in section 2.1 for errata management. I'll add it to the list.


> 2. Statistical Data on the Web Best Practices
>
> Should this  mention this spatial somehow?   If it is intended to  be of
> wider scope than “spatial statistics”?  in section 3.2 it becomes clear
> that it is not confined to spatial.    So that leads me to suggest that
> the Charter be renamed “Spatial and Statistical Data on the Web Interest
> Group” to be more properly defined.

I don't disagree, but I'm afraid it's too late to change the name of the 
group now...


[...]
> 5. Section 6 decision policy troubles me a bit. I can see the brave
> attempt to deal with the expected  asynchronicity of the Group.
>
> I am concerned about the “consensus emerges with little formal voting
> being required.”

I note that the entire section is "boilerplate":
https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/charter-template.html#decisions


> Given the very common situation of apparent consensus emerging within a
> meeting, but then /much /later the whole issue comes up again – I think
> it would be a good idea to /record/  “decisions” /whenever/ consensus is
> believed to be achieved.
>
> Is such a “decision” a “resolution”?  ---I think so.  The important
> thing is that “consensus emerging” transitions to a formal decision
>
> (to be unambiguously distinguished  from “/we had a discussion but did
> not resolve anything/”, or “/we already decided this when a few of us
> got together/”).
>
>
>
> Then, I would  remove the explicit “call for consensus” step, instead
> requiring that it simply  always applies. That is, I propose
>
>
>
> /Any resolution (including publication decisions) taken in a
> face-to-face meeting or teleconference will be considered provisional
> for a period of 10 working days. If no objections are raised on the
> mailing list by the end of the response period, the resolution will be
> considered to have consensus as a resolution of the Interest Group./
>
>
>
> This behoves group members to keep track of minutes of unattended
> meetings and to speak up fast; and it behoves Chairs to be crystal clear
> that a decision has been made.

I do not know the exact reasons that led to the current text, but I 
suspect that the main motivation for an explicit Call for Consensus is 
clarity: minutes are important but they are often hard to digest when 
you could not attend the call. An explicit call for consensus makes the 
decision and rationale much clearer.

That said, requiring a call for consensus for all decisions seems a bit 
too much to me as well.

Could you raise the issue against the underlying repository on GitHub?
https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues

Thanks,
Francois.

Received on Monday, 25 September 2017 12:45:36 UTC