Re: [w3c/charter-html] Charter must state a reason when duplicating work done elsewhere (#139)

> I note that in the particular re-charter proposed here, we're looking for advice on whether or not to take up two deliverables produced through incubation and W3C-based processes, and whether to split off a piece of work in order to clarify an IPR/participation situation. None of the above seems directly related to the questions raised in this issue.

This is making me regret not formally objecting last time. On the previous charter and the one before it (but I wasn't an AC the first time), I raised the same issue. Last time I said in my AC review that I really thought it was important and hoped we could make progress on it, but would not object because I realized it takes time. A charter later, we're at the same point.

Invoking the fact that this isn't a new problem to call for focusing on more contemporary questions leaves a sour taste.

> There are a variety of reasons [...] a preference for contributions [...] we aim not to copy wwg work
 [...]
> The mandate of the WG is to work on the specifications that are listed as deliverables

Alright, then I misunderstood the charter the two previous times. I kind of thought, since it was the only thing listed, that avoiding divergence from the WHATWG version was the most important objective, that we may fail occasionally because reasons, but that would be driving us.

You seem to be stating the exact opposite: that the primary mandate of the WG is to do independent work on all of these specs, the ones being also maintained at WHATWG not being a special case, and that the "make an effort to avoid differences" clause merely means "don't break the web", which being part of our normal modus operandi make this clause a no-op.

Ok, fair enough, it is possible to read the charter that way.

But I think this reinforces my initial point. The charter is vague, and ought to be clarified, because otherwise anybody can read what they want into it, from "we shall do our utmost to be as close a possible to WHATWG" to "WHATWG is irrelevant, we're doing independent work here". It is entirely possible that the editors have been doing what the member ship wants. It also seems possible to me that what the editors have been doing is almost the opposite of what the membership wants. It is also possible that the vast majority of the membership doesn't care one bit either way because we're far into consensus by attrition territory.

The fact that I can read the charter, look at what the editors and chairs have been doing, and have no clue as to whether you're doing a great job at what you were chartered to do or the very opposite is a problem.

I am not being facetious here. Compare with the i18n WG for instance, which also has a deliverable that overlaps with the WHATWG. [That charter](https://www.w3.org/TR/encoding/) uses very similar wording: "The Working Group will work [...] to avoid differences [...] that would harm interoperability". However, over there, it means that the WG literally uses the WHATWG document as the editor's draft and puts a giant red and gold glowing warning [on their TR](https://www.w3.org/TR/encoding/) spec inviting people to read the WHATWG document for the latest updates.

If the same phrasing can be the basis for that practice as well as the total editorial independence you advocate, then it is so broad as to be meaningless. Which is what this issue is about.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/139#issuecomment-303102078