Re: Possible item for discussion for 2016 -- Charter adjustments

On 5/13/2015 12:54 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> On May 13, 2015, at 9:50 , Wendy Seltzer <> wrote:
>> On 05/13/2015 12:48 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>> 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.
>> That's not my impression. At least in the case of the WebAppSec
>> recharter, I reached back out to everyone who had responded to the poll
>> to ask whether they had questions or objections to the proposed revisions.
> ah, that was good of you, but I don’t think it is documented anywhere, is it?

I agree with Wendy, and I don't think that the process is as David 

If one objects to a charter, the team works with you and others who 
objected (as David says) as well as other interested parties. Almost 
always, the team will work with the Chairs.  As necessary, the Chairs 
might also recommend conversations with other parties and potentially 
with the entire Working Group.

For example, in the current WAI charter reviews, there have been 
discussions on the member-charter-review mailing list, but there have 
also been conversations with folks in the various working groups.  (And 
in the case of WAI there was also an AB discussion and an AC discussion.)

If the team senses that the resolution of the objection is relatively 
minor it is possible that a revised charter could be just "adopted" as 
you say.  More likely, if there is any suspicion on the team that there 
would be previous supporters that are turned into objectors by the 
revision, the Team would send the new charters back to the AC.

>> Perhaps that procedure needs to be formalized, but it's not quite so
>> loose as to wreck trains!
> Phew.
>> --Wendy
>>> 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.

Certainly a candidate topic.  Generally, I'd like to clean up potential 
problems, but seeing how difficult it is to get a new Process approved 
I'd rather focus on real problems.  Do we have examples where this has 
been a real problem?

>>> Do we have an accumulated list of possible topics for Process2016?

The list is here:

>>>    Mine includes:
>>> TAG appointment, composition, etc.

Issue-133 is the closest, but you might want to add a new one.

>>> The CG->WG transition: do we need anything in the process?

Issue 130:

>>> The text on AC Appeals is not very consistent (but they never happen, so why worry?)

Issues 134, 135 address part of this problem.

>>> This issue: charter adjustment and no (re-)vote

There are a few chartering related issues, but this one might be new.

>>> What else?
>>> David Singer
>>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> -- 
>> Wendy Seltzer -- +1.617.715.4883 (office)
>> Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2015 18:53:06 UTC