Chartering work

FYI, below are my charter review comments on the Web Payments WG, which I think echo some of what Harry was saying recently.

This area of work is very important to the Web, and we support its chartering in general.

I've talked through the issues I had with the charter with Ian and Dom, and made proposals (e.g., <>) to make it less verbose and more concrete (although there are still parts, especially in Deliverables, that aren't clear). Hopefully, those changes will make it into the final charter (AIUI the Process doesn't give much visibility into that until after approval).

At a high level, I'm still uncomfortable with this charter, because it isn't based upon a concrete, technical proposal. It also lacks solid information on how it will be implemented; e.g., will it require browser support, or will it be possible to polyfill? 

IME successful standards are based upon real implementation and deployment experience with a specific proposal, not confected from whole cloth. Good (even heroic) chairing might give it better odds, but this proposal doesn't name any chair(s), yet.

As such, I'd rather the charter nominate specific technical proposals -- something that the IG can work on and bring back to the AC. 

Failing that, I'd expect a more limited charter, where the work was chopped up into manageable bits, so that we can re-charter as the work progresses, contingent upon success in each milestone.

I'm going to leave this as a FO for now, because I think this is a fundamental issue in how we charter work, and I'd like to see a formal response (even if it's overruled, which is fine).

Would love to chat through it if people are interested.

Mark Nottingham

Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2015 08:19:19 UTC