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

> On May 13, 2015, at 11:53 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/13/2015 12:54 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>> On May 13, 2015, at 9:50 , Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> 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 described.
> 
> 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.

OK, this sounds good, but falls into practice rather than process (which might be enough).

> 
> 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?

There was one a year or two ago where we were surprised and considered raising it, but in the interests of peace and harmony we let it go.

> 
>>>> 
>>>> Do we have an accumulated list of possible topics for Process2016?
> 
> The list is here: http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/raised

That’s everything in the grab-bag.  I was wondering if we had any start on what we actually intend to take up for Process2016…

> 
>>>>   Mine includes:
>>>> 
>>>> TAG appointment, composition, etc.
> 
> Issue-133 is the closest, but you might want to add a new one. http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/133
> 
>>>> The CG->WG transition: do we need anything in the process?
> 
> Issue 130: http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/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.
> 

I won’t clutter up the issue tracker without conversation first, but if we feel there is an issue here, I can add it.

I’ll comment on 133, that its scope could be broader.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.