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

RE: Request for Decision: Design Principles

From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:10:15 -0400
Message-ID: <1835D662B263BC4E864A7CFAB2FEEB3D258BD2@msfexch01.srunet.sruad.edu>
To: "Murray Maloney" <murray@muzmo.com>
Cc: <karl@w3.org>, <www-archive@w3.org>, <connolly@w3.org>, <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, <mjs@apple.com>

Thanks Murray (and Chris) for your responses.
It sounds like the precedent I was asking about exists. That satisfies me.


From: Murray Maloney [mailto:murray@muzmo.com]
Sent: Fri 4/20/2007 2:45 PM
To: Dailey, David P.
Cc: murray@muzmo.com; karl@w3.org; www-archive@w3.org; connolly@w3.org; Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com; mjs@apple.com
Subject: Re: Request for Decision: Design Principles

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

>This made me wonder something:
>Maciej has written
>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
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.


Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 20:11:05 UTC

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