RE: Charter task force - list of volunteers

I prefer to focus on the positive: We (implicitly) used this Decision Policy on the call today, and got done 15 minutes early, with everyone apparently going away happy.

Anyway, this doesn’t “diverge from the formal W3C policy” it applies the formal consensus policy to the modern reality and widespread best practice of using GitHub to enable communities to work together productively.  It encourages WG members to make concrete change proposals as pull requests, and encourages chairs to use those PRs to build consensus on how to move forward.  It should make it easier to recruit editors and to keep the lack of editing resources from being a bottleneck on WG progress.

From: Adam Roach [mailto:abr@mozilla.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 10:41 AM
To: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH); Eric Rescorla; Erik Lagerway
Cc: Harald Alvestrand; public-webrtc@w3.org; Dominique Hazael-Massieux
Subject: Re: Charter task force - list of volunteers

On 5/20/15 12:27, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
Writing it down in a way that reflects the tools we’re actually using rather than the boilerplate that has been in W3C charters for years helps everyone remember how we agreed to make decisions at the outset.  For example, there might be disagreements about whether an editors’ draft reflects the WG consensus or not.  To the extent we can leverage GitHub’s “paper trail” of forks, pull requests,  and merges, it should be more efficient to resolve such disagreements.

This sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Can you point to incidents in this working group that would motivate the need for something that diverges from the formal W3C policy?
--
Adam Roach
Principal Platform Engineer
abr@mozilla.com<mailto:abr@mozilla.com>
+1 650 903 0800 x863