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

On 2015-05 -13, at 09:50, 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.
> 
> Perhaps that procedure needs to be formalized, but it's not quite so
> loose as to wreck trains!


- Some charter edits are, like corrections of fact or fixing of links,  such that one cannot imagine anyone who reviewed it before changing their positive review to a negative one on the basis of it. In that case it is not worth holding up the process.

- If there is a substantive change not like that, then the set of people who responded to the poll are clearly the key people who deserve to be involved in any rework of the charter, while the scope if not increased

- If the scope is increased by the changes the you logically need a heads up to the whole AC

timbl

> 
> --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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
> Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
> 
> 
>