Possible item for discussion for 2016 -- Charter adjustments

At the moment, if one objects to a charter, the team works with you and others who objected, to adjust the charter to resolve your objection, which is great.

But then the charter is simply adopted.  Those who voted for the charter as it was, who might have liked it before it was adjusted and maybe don’t like it now, are not consulted.  This could easily be a problem.

I rather think we somehow need to address this before we have a train wreck.  One possibility is that a charter is open for comment and adjustment for an interval, on the AC mailing list, and then the formal ballot is simply yes/no, without comment, and if that ballot fails (it should not, if we reached consensus in discussion), then we go back to discussion again.

I am sure there are other ideas.

Is this worth considering for Process2016?  It would mesh well with the “we’ll start working on new charters well before the old ones expire” change of practice.

Do we have an accumulated list of possible topics for Process2016?  Mine includes:

TAG appointment, composition, etc.
The CG->WG transition: do we need anything in the process?
The text on AC Appeals is not very consistent (but they never happen, so why worry?)
This issue: charter adjustment and no (re-)vote


What else?

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.