W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Limiting Charter extensions

From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:20:53 +0300
To: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Cc: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <32431419157253@webcorp02f.yandex-team.ru>
21.12.2014, 01:44, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>:
> On Thursday 2014-12-18 10:09 -0800, Wayne Carr wrote:
>> šššššIn the current Process, WGs/IGs can be extended by the Director over
>> šššššand over as long as there are no substantive modifications to the
>> šššššCharter.šš The membership should have the opportunity to review
>> šššššwhether a group should continue or change its scope or deliverables
>> ššššš(or to terminate).š Members can appeal the Director's decision to
>> šššššextend and have an AC vote on it, but it would be better to limit
>> šššššthe total extension.<br>
>> ššššš<br>
>> šššššI didn't put it in this proposal, but i also think it would be good
>> šššššto limit charters to 2 years so we get the chance to look at where
>> šššššthe WG is headed at least every 2 1/2 years (if a 6 month extension
>> šššššhappens). <br>
> I'm a little worried about the question of who gets punished when a
> charter fails to be extended.

Yes, but I am a little worried that the answer currently is "nobody".

First, when their groups wink out of existence, W3C will be punished. I think that's OK. Second, the group themselves - although given that unchartered groups or repeatedly extended happily work on for *years*, there doesn't seem to be a real issue there.

> I agree that it's good for charters to get reasonably frequent
> review, as you suggest. šBut 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.

Yes. Seems like a good incentive to get the charter in order early, and make sure people are aware of it.

> 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.

Yes. Although in practice there are already plenty of holes in this.

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

The process has never been very heavy. You you write a charter, W3M reviews it, the AC review it, unless there are major objections you publish it. Even the worst case in recent memory - HTML and the license experiment - only took months. And a lot of that time was because instead of just holding the discussion and making decisions, W3C tried to sort out everything in advance so there was no disagreement. So successfully that even the people whose original objection they were trying to satisfy were not satisfied with the result.

I've seen people make heavy going of re-chartering, and I have seen very long delays in internal management review (of more than a year). I think these problems should be solved.

The one issue I am really worried about is people not getting their charters ready, and then just elbowing their way through without proper review. If there were a clear requirement for AC review within a fixed period, that would be easier to see and to stop.

Just my 2c worth.


Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Sunday, 21 December 2014 10:21:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:25 UTC