12.02.2015, 09:11, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>:
On 2015-02-11 19:26, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker wrote:
w3process-ISSUE-158 (New or continued WG?): Does rechartering extinguish a WG or continue it? [Process Document]
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/158
Raised by: Charles McCathie Nevile
On product: Process Document
Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfp> describe the process of extending charters.
It is unclear whether a Working Group that is rechartered is the same Working Group, or a different one - which has an impact on how the Patent Policy works, since commitments are to things produced by a particular Working Group.
The patent policy has other important concepts that aren't specifically defined in the policy, not just Working Group.
Sure, this issue doesn't resolve everything. It points out a particular issue that arises because the Process document is unclear.
Like obligations are "related to the work of that particular Working Group". It doesn't seem altogether unreasonable to think that the work of a WG in that context means the work undertaken under a Charter while you're actually in the WG, as opposed to work meaning everything the WG did in previous decades including work that no one has looked at since.
That probably isn't actually part of *this* issue.
So, the matter isn't necessarily settled on whether WGs are the same WG after charter or not.
The goal isn't to settle the Patent Policy question. Clarifying the Process may make so of that question clearer - which has an impact on what people decide the answer should be.
I think this is the wrong place to discuss this at all.
Given that the Process document TF works in this CG, I think it is worth having the issue documented here.
As noted, I think the question is really one for the AC, so for now I expect it just to be a note.
There don't seem to be any purely process issues to resolve related to this.
The Process defines working groups, but doesn't clearly define when they end (nor, as noted in another issue, does it define how you could resign). That seems to be a bug.
I think it should just be closed. If it's a patent issue, it doesn't belong here.
It isn't a patent issue, but issues of patent policy are perfectly within scope of this group. It is just not likely to be worth a lot of initial discussion here, since anything proposed is unlikely to go anywhere without strong support in the AC…
We can clarify that a Working Group whose charter is revised is the same, or a different Working Group. It is probably worth asking the AC to express a preference one way or another before we decide it here.
Cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at
http://yandex.com