Re: Limiting Charter extensions

On Thursday 2014-12-18 10:09 -0800, Wayne Carr wrote:
>     In the current Process, WGs/IGs can be extended by the Director over
>     and over as long as there are no substantive modifications to the
>     Charter.   The membership should have the opportunity to review
>     whether a group should continue or change its scope or deliverables
>     (or to terminate).  Members can appeal the Director's decision to
>     extend and have an AC vote on it, but it would be better to limit
>     the total extension.<br>
>     <br>
>     I didn't put it in this proposal, but i also think it would be good
>     to limit charters to 2 years so we get the chance to look at where
>     the WG is headed at least every 2 1/2 years (if a 6 month extension
>     happens). <br>

I'm a little worried about the question of who gets punished when a
charter fails to be extended.

I agree that it's good for charters to get reasonably frequent
review, as you suggest.  But if there's a hard limit on charter
duration, then a failure to get a revised charter reviewed in time
would lead to a group dropping out of existence, perhaps
temporarily.

I'm worried about the risk of telling a group that's doing good work
that it's hopefully-temporarily-but-maybe-permanently out of
existence, which has implications on publishing specs along the Rec
track, patent policy, etc.

And I've certainly seen the rechartering process take a very long
time, possibly more than a year for a single rechartering.  Though
perhaps it's gotten more lightweight recently.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)