Re: [w3c/editing] [charter] Define the Success Criteria (#281)

> possible to write a basic JS text editor that works across writing systems with no more than 3 years development effort.

I think the success criteria should be easily measurable and preferably not so monolithic.  The statement above seems ambiguous (what's the definition of "basic JS text editor") and the criteria: "3 years of development effort", seems like by definition could take a while to measure: up to 3 years :-).

Also the criteria seems like it encompasses too much. A JS text editor requires many pieces beyond the scope of this working group.  I'd prefer criteria that can be evaluated per specification so we can measure our progress in a more incremental way.

I like the language from the [CSS Working Group charter](https://www.w3.org/2019/10/css-wg-charter.html).

Putting its language in my own words I see that it focuses on:
* Whether we're producing stable documents that implementers can follow
* Whether we're producing test collateral to measure how well those implementations conform to our specifications
* Whether there are independent implementations in existence
* Whether there has been broad adoption of our APIs by the web development community

Those all seem easily measurable and like important indicators of success.  The first two are measures of how well we're executing and second two are measures of how well we served our audience (the implementors and the web developers).

@johanneswilm and @gked, what do you think about changing the language in the proposed charter?

-- 
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/editing/issues/281#issuecomment-808698662