W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Request for Decision: Design Principles

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:45:57 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20070420144216.088bc1d0@mail.muzmo.com>
To: David Dailey <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Cc: murray@muzmo.com,karl@w3.org,www-archive@w3.org,connolly@w3.org, Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com,mjs@apple.com

At 02:22 PM 4/20/2007 -0400, David Dailey wrote:


>This made me wonder something:
>
>Maciej has written 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0911.html 
>concerning the proposed principles that
>
> >You can think of them as self-imposed amendments to the charter, so
> >that we don't have to pick through the often vague language of the
> >charter for justification. Since they are self-imposed, they are also
> >less difficult to add or remove in response to feedback. All it takes
> >is a decision of the group, not the full re-chartering process which
> >is slow and disruptive.
>
>Has a W3C group ever modified its own charter in this way? If so was it 
>done by majority rule?

I am not sure Maciej was being literal or not, but I did not interpret his 
suggestion
as being an actual amendment to the charter as much as a virtual amendment.
The XML Schema WG adopted a set of design principles as did the XML WG.

>If there is a minority which opposes such a modification of a charter, 
>then it would seem that consensus has not been achieved and that an 
>official rechartering might be required. Maybe not. I suspect Karl may 
>know of precedents.

Re-chartering is a rat hole that I don't want to go anywhere near. It is 
almost a miracle
that we have this WG at all. Let's try hard to keep it together and not 
seek any more
ways to tear it apart.

>Or perhaps in some meta WG that oversees the specifications of charters, 
>there may be language that covers exactly this situation and that a 
>majority may, as it wishes, change things in this way. In the US, I think 
>one needs a 2/3 majority to change the constitution, plus some sort of 
>state-by-state referendum.

Regards,

Murray
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 19:14:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:06 UTC