Another draft Re: IG charter: modification suggestion

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:57:35 +0200, FUNAHASHI Yosuke  
<yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp> wrote:
...
> I have reviewed the initial draft charter and wrote out my
> modification suggstion.

I have forwarded an edited version to Kaz for posting on the website. The  
vast majority of the proposed modifications I have kept, with the  
following exceptions:

1. I removed the short name of the group. I think it will be Web and TV,  
but I don't think we will be able to enforce what people call it anyway;
2. I have changed the teleconference schedule to be "as needed" (and  
specified that chairs can call meetings as needed);
3. I have retained the paragraph that Funahashi-san suggested deleting  
about review of W3C work being a deliverable;
4. I have removed DRM as an explicit example from the "things we are not  
sure where they should be done". I am concerned that naming it (and  
nothing else in the whole document) will cause unecessary tension and  
bureaucratic delay before we get to deal with the actual issue; and
5. I have reverted to having the Interest Group open to all (but made the  
patent policy commitment requirement more explicit in the participation  
section and tweaked the decision process somewhat).

I have also introduced the following changes:

1. Added as an explicit deliverable to process output from further  
workshops or face-to-face meetings on the same basis as for those of the  
Tokyo workshop;
2. Added as a potential deliverable a W3C Note describing the relationship  
between TV and Web (as noted in Funahashi-san's addition to the scope);
3. I shifted the first deliverable due date to 30 January (this process is  
taking too much time already and distracting us from actual work :( ).
4. In the decision policy I have stated that a consensus position is one  
agreed to by the W3C members in the group, but where people in the group  
(W3C member or no) take dissenting positions, they have to forwarded  
together with any consensus position. (This is to encourage the group to  
either decide or pass the work and let the relevant Working Group make the  
decision based on broad input).
5. I have also clarified that a decision made at a meeting or  
teleconference is subject to a time-limited review period on the mailing  
list before it can be considered an agreement of the group.
6. All the links should be either working, or href="@@" (if they go to the  
Interest Group's home page because I don't have a URI for that).

And while I fixed some typos (thanks Yosuke ;) ) I probably introduced  
some new ones :|

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 01:40:06 UTC