Re: Proposal to allow AC to initiate WG Charter AC Review - correcting format

On 2016-06-08 04:25, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> On 07/06/2016 20:49, wayne carr wrote:
>
>> A Member Submission may include a proposed Working Group Charter, where
>> the request is for the Team to submit the proposed Charter to Advisory
>> Committee Review for starting the Working Group.  Incubator specs for
>> every proposed specification deliverable must be part of the Member
>> Submission, along with the Charter.   If the Team acknowledges a
>> Submission, but rejects the proposal to Submit the Charter to AC Review,
>> then the TAG,  AB or 5% of the AC may cause the start of an Advisory
>> Committee Appeal vote as in Section 7.2.  That appeals vote would then
>> decide whether to instruct the Team to prepare the Charter and put it to
>> AC Review. The Director, for budgetary reasons, could choose to offer
>> only minimal team support in the Charter for the proposed group.
>>
> Wayne,
>
> All in all, I like the idea but I'm not so sure it's easily doable.
>
> I have a few issues to discuss: a Charter ready to be submitted to AC
> review/vote should contain information about Co-chairs, duration and
> more importantly Staff Contact. I don't see this happening without prior
> contacts between the submitting organization and W3M so the former
> would know if W3M is opposed to the submission of the Charter to
> ACs or not...

As the proposed text says, the usual path is doing this through the 
team.  The question is what happens if the Director (i.e. W3C 
management) just doesn't want to do it.  What this is about is making 
sure the Membership can always create a WG if it wants to - that the 
Team doesn't have a veto over what work the Membership wants to do.  
e.g. html5 vs xhtml type debate in the future.  Right now, there is 
absolutely no way for the Membership to cause a WG Charter to go to AC 
Review unless the Director agrees to propose it to the AC.  That's what 
this fixes.

I think it would be better if the Membership could cause an AC Review on 
a proposed WG Charter if this extreme case every arose. Having fallbacks 
like that I think prevents the need to ever use them -- just because 
they're possible.

As to the little things needed in the Charter, in this proposal it still 
is the Team that makes sure the Charter contains what it needs to -- 
this is about the AC being able to cause them to do that.

>
> Furthermore, the last sentence from your prose above does not seem
> right to me: the Director is not here to offer team support and deal
> with budget, the CEO is. The Director could veto the submission of such
> a Charter to ACs.

The W3C Process document is written in terms of the "Director" doing 
things, not the CEO.  In practice, the Director can delegate any way 
they want to -- it's just how the Process document describes the major 
roles.

I don't know what you mean by "The Director could veto the submission of 
sucha Charter to ACs. "

In this proposal, the Director cannot stop the AC from having an appeal 
vote that if it passed resulted in the Charter going to AC Review.  
After the AC Review, as always, the Director decides what the consensus 
is.  And, as always, that decision can be subject to AC Appeal.  That 
doesn't change. Once something gets to AC Review, there already is an 
"appeal" process where the Membership can override the Director 
decision.  This applies that to getting the AC Review started - so the 
AC isn't just reactive to proposals, it can initiate them in the extreme 
case where the membership wants something and can't get to an AC Review.

So, this is very unlikely to ever happen -- but, if it does come up the 
Membership should be able to decide what WGs W3C forms.

>
> What if the chartered activity could be handled by an existing Group?
> What if the whole thing does make sense as a Member Submission (a spec)
> but none as a W3C WG?

If it makes no sense to do, I'd think the TAG, AB or 5% of the AC would 
not ask for an appeal vote to request that it go to an AC Review of the 
charter.  And I'd assume if they did, the AC would not approve letting 
the Charter go on to an AC Review.


>
> </Daniel>
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2016 15:50:14 UTC