> On Apr 15, 2015, at 11:03 , Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: > >> But I think that we need to get much better at our practices before we make this rule change. It’s deplorable, but at the moment groups ‘run off the end of the pier’, let their charter expire, and only then start worrying about renewing it. If we were to introduce this rule today, when charter expiry is all too common, chaos and panic would ensue. I don’t want to be in the position of the forced closure of a WG that we all agree should have been re-chartered and still operating. That would be … embarrassing. > > Maybe where a group is "just" late, and has not for example actually taken on a wider scope of work, then the rechartering should be quick and easy. Totally agree. We should be able to process a new charter pretty simply and quickly if all that has happened is a change of milestone dates (and there is some accompanying material explaining what’s going on). David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 09:32:28 UTC