Re: IG charter - alpha 4

> On 19 May 2016, at 13:20, <kawaguchi.toru@jp.panasonic.com> <kawaguchi.toru@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Dave, Kaz, all,
>  
> I was confused what the purpose of re-chartering this time was. My understanding was that, the group considered that WG should focus on creating recommendations and related test suites, so that the IG should be kept and do the complementary role to WG. So the necessary update to IG charter for now would be clarifying the relationship between IG and WG, as well as extending the time to allow doing such complementary role. Such change seems to be reasonable amount of work which meets to current time frame by July.

We are required to recharter the IG as its original charter has expired and we are only permitted a short term extension whilst we recharter. This is independent of setting up the WG.  However we want the new IG charter to set up expectations for how the IG and WG would work together. I think we’ve covered that quite well in the draft IG charter. Of course the IG charter can’t make commitments on behalf of the WG charter and vice versa. That isn’t a real problem since we developing both the IG and WG charters and can ensure that each clarifies the role that that group is expected to take.

Are there any further changes you think are needed in the IG charter in respect to the IG’s role with respect to the WG? 

    https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha4.html <https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha4.html>

> After then, we can continue discussion on investigating on new deliverables, within the scope of IG activity. After such discussion, when we reach consensus on what should be delivered, we can update the charter so that the group can advertise to recruit newly interested parties on such deliverables.
>  
> On the other hands, if we invite new members under current situation, i.e.) without enough consensus on new deliverables and continue debating, I'm afraid that they are disappointed because they want to discuss about technology and not about the politics.

As we are required to recharter now, we have to reach out to the W3C Members to explain to them what we’re doing and why they should support us, and preferably join and actively participate in the work.  This gives us an opportunity to attract the resources we need to and to up the level of involvement.

In respect to the proposed new work items, I am very confident of getting the resources to drive them forward. We already have several people in the IG interested and it will be easy to get more people that will join the IG to work on them.

I don’t believe that Matthia’s objection is to with politics, rather he has stated that he worries about getting enough people to act as editors.  To fix that we need to make the IG a more welcoming working environment and to reach out to bring new people in.

>  So, I suggest to 1) make minimum update to charter for now, and 2) continue discussion for what should be delivered and then update charter again whenever we reach consensus. Does it make sense?

Updating the charter is an expensive process, both within the IG and with all of the outreach required.  This is something that you don’t want to do too often.

This makes it all the more important to get a good charter now.

—
   Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>