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

>>Additionally, support from two or more web platform implementers is required before a substantive change can be made to a specification. This is enforced by a pull request template on GitHub, which Editors must fill out as a public record before a substantive contribution can be merged. [1]
>>
>That is the part that basically means we should not make any change to any draft without two implementers agreeing to implement it like that. So whenever you make any change to the EditContext spec, technically, you'd need promises from at least Firefox or Safari that they will implement it also in the new way.

@johanneswilm I agree with your process observations for specs on the recommendation track.  The EditContext isn't yet a spec on a recommendation track, it's an explainer in the incubation phase.  Maybe it shouldn't be part of the working group's charter yet, but wherever it lives it isn't reasonable to ask for implementer commitments for the changes were making to the proposal at this stage of its development. 

Let's discuss scope in a separate issue and stay focused on success criteria in this issue.

> That being said, I can see how "success criteria" can be understood in multiple ways, and so if it's more common to put some general text there that just kind of described what we are doing, then that is fine with me as well.

The [success criteria of the Web Apps WG](https://www.w3.org/2019/05/webapps-charter.html#scope), the [CSS WG](https://www.w3.org/2019/10/css-wg-charter.html#success-criteria), the [Accessibility WG](https://www.w3.org/2019/12/ag-charter#success-criteria), the [Media WG](https://www.w3.org/2019/05/media-wg-charter.html#success) and other working groups I've randomly clicked on all have very similar wording.

The common components of the success criteria seem to be:
* Getting two implementations of specs
* Enumeration of accessibility, privacy and security concerns in specs
* Tests for specs

It sounds like your open to adopting this more general wording.  How about we use the [Web Apps WG success criteria](https://www.w3.org/2019/05/webapps-charter.html#scope) as its currently written:

>In order to advance to [Proposed Recommendation](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#RecsPR), each specification must have at least[ two independent implementations](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#implementation-experience) in wide use.
>
>Each specification must have an accompanying test suite, which is ideally developed in parallel to the specification. The test suite will be used to produce an implementation report before the specification transitions to [Proposed Recommendation](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#RecsPR).
>
>Where there are implications for implementors, developers, or users, in the areas of accessibility, internationalization, privacy, and security, each specification must have a section that describes relevant benefits, limitations, and best practice solutions for that particular area.


-- 
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-808853578