W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-bluetooth@w3.org > March 2015

Writing a CG charter

From: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:58:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CANh-dXn-GQjC+VAFgD_KTTwU5mejdAWWvh7GT_sVMDa6_=FSaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-web-bluetooth <public-web-bluetooth@w3.org>
Cc: Anssi Kostiaine <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Anssi, Wayne, and I have started to draft a charter for this community
group, in the https://github.com/WebBluetoothCG/web-bluetooth/tree/charter
branch. You can see the current draft at
https://github.com/WebBluetoothCG/web-bluetooth/blob/charter/charter.md,
and the branch also contains changes to CONTRIBUTING.md and LICENSE*.

I'd like to invite pull requests against that branch and discussion on this
thread.

Once discussion dies down, I'll send a Call for Comments to this list to
adopt the charter, and I'll ask everyone who's committed to the repository
to explicitly agree to the new LICENSE file (the second is probably
unnecessary for people who've joined the CG, but it's polite). When the
charter is adopted, I'll merge it to the main gh-pages branch.

----------------

Some questions about the content of the charter:

* Is the Scope what we want? I listed channel-based Bluetooth as
out-of-scope; should we also require a Charter change to add Peripheral
support? Since the Use Cases document is the main definition of what's in
scope, are there use cases we need to add before finalizing the charter?

* The CG charter template (
https://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Templates/CG_Charter) suggests
particular numbers of days for various votes and calls for comments: 14 +
21 days to select a new chair (if I go mad with power); 7-14 days to vote
if we fail to achieve consensus; 30 days to amend the charter. These
numbers seem long to me. Can we shorten them? Are they right as-is?

* The Contribution Mechanics section is pretty strict about what's
considered a contribution, to avoid general discussion on the mailing list
or a github issue being misconstrued as granting patent rights. Is the
wording there what we want?

Thanks,
Jeffrey
Received on Friday, 27 March 2015 23:59:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 March 2015 23:59:31 UTC