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

> @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.

Hitherto it applied to every document we were working on - no matter where in the process. It's the reason why the contenteditable spec [1] is now empty. The only reason that it hasn't applied to the EditContext document is - as far as I can tell - that we didn't tell anyone we started working on that, nor asked permission. 

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

The reason why this is relevant here is that part of my reason why I thought the current text was a good idea is that we needed to make clear we are working on old and new specs trying to solve a specific problem (text editing on the web) and so we are trying to drive specs in coordination with development in the browsers. That's different from what we currently have, as the restrictions basically limit us to just speccing features that already exist, possibly coordinating the change of some behavior mildly for the browsers to behave more similarly, but not developing and implementing entirely new APIs. 

Given that the sentence that causes this is not part of this new charter, I don't see a particular reason to start a separate conversation on this.

> 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.

If all charters have the same success criteria, then maybe it would make sense to move this section to some general W3C documents rather than have all the charters repeat one-another.

I still think we are different from the WGs that you mention in that all of them are basically constantly ongoing efforts with no end date in sight, whereas we might actually decide not to recharter if we think our problem has been resolved. We are not really successful if we manage to get 500 specs through that process, yet they are just 500 more useless APIs that do not help JS devs much in creating text editors.

So removing the information on what we are actually aiming to do while adding some general text that is in all the charters, doesn't seem that helpful to me. But maybe we can move the text on what the actual goal is to somewhere else in the document? An explainer text somewhere possibly?

[1] https://github.com/w3c/contentEditable/blob/gh-pages/index.html

-- 
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-808857646