Re: process.next wish list

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 18:22 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> 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.
> 
> Also, there doesn't need to be any running off the pier, all it takes for the Charter not to expire is an email from the Director to the AC extending the charter while they work to recharter.  If we adopted, the rule that groups are automatically closed when the charter expires now, we could encourage the Director to be generous with granting extensions for a while so WGs can adjust (to the notion of actually having to work under a charter).  (except for SysApps -- close it!!!)
> 

The combination of the rules (a) at most one extension (b) at most 6 months per extension (c) groups close if they hit their expiry date; means that lax charter management will have groups running off the pier. Hence my desire to stop doing lax charter management that before we change the rules…(and we are on track to tighten up charter management, I believe).

The case of a charter expiring and the group closing automatically should be diagnostic that there was no-one left to turn out the lights, and the motion sensor says to turn them off anyway.  (Are there lights on piers?  I suppose so.  Yours for mixing metaphors!)


David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.