RE: w3process-ISSUE-109 (Unreviewed Charter Extension): Should AC approval be required to extend a charter [Process Document]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:59 AM
> To: Revising W3C Process Community Group
> Subject: Re: w3process-ISSUE-109 (Unreviewed Charter Extension): Should
> AC approval be required to extend a charter [Process Document]
> 
> On 8/19/14 8:59 AM, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
> wrote:
> > should we require an AC review or approval to extend a charter
> (sometimes, always, more than X amount of time)?
> 
> Seems like it would be mostly `make work` to have a formal AC review if
> the length (of a WG's charter extension) is relatively short. As such, a
> formal AC review of a charter extension should only be done if the
> extension is on the long-ish side, say 6+ months.
> 
[SZ] The (original) point of having charter extensions was twofold:
1. the work is almost done and will complete in X months without any changes to the charter so it seems unnecessary to re-charter the WG, or
2. the WG needs more time to complete a new charter for a re-chartering.

In either case, having an AC review even if the time span is longer than 6 months seems like a waste of time. What makes sense would be to say that any given extension should be for no longer than 6 months. And, since extensions are appealable, if enough people felt that a group had serious gone astray they can appeal the extension. Our goal is to have no more process than is necessary. It seems to me that the existing process provides the necessary checks and balances, but that having a limit on the amount of time for a single extension might make sense.

Steve Zilles

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2014 04:18:45 UTC