- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:17:25 -0700
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: w3c-ac-forum@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20130914131725.GA25249@crum.dbaron.org>
I strongly agree with Daniel's message. I believe it may be useful for a super-group (HTML, CSS, WebApps) charter to document priorities (and maybe even document disagreement about priorities), but I don't think a list of fake deadlines for deliverables makes sense. (And that's despite my position that we could benefit from more cutting of difficult pieces in order to ship specs.) An alternative to documenting priorities in one big discussion, perhaps, is to allow working group members to disagree about priorities when actual prioritization happens in practice. One example of such prioritization is how to allocate meeting time. (I suspect it's useful for the chairs to have observed the discussion about priorities in order to do that well, but I don't think it requires that the group reach agreement about priorities.) Another example of actual prioritization is my response to a question as to whether I was going to do the work needed to advance css3-conditional from CR to PR, and my response was that I was prioritizing that work lower than the edits needed to get css3-transitions and css3-animations to Last Call; nobody in the group responded to my saying that with the suggestion that my priorities should be the other way around. On Friday 2013-09-13 15:54 +0200, Daniel Glazman wrote: > Writing the above takes a lot, really a lot, and too often too much > time. As an example, previous rechartering of the CSS Working Group > took six months, using considerable confcall and ftf time, impacting > drastically the co-chairs and Staff contacts. Furthermore, setting > milestones is extremely difficult since reaching these milestones > highly depend on vendors' strategies, test suites' development and > code implementations that can deeply change in the two or three years > of existence of a charter. Six months, you claim? I couldn't find evidence of a recent CSS rechartering that was that fast. The last three: discussion started on or before 2005-02-28: http://www.w3.org/mid/BE48E522.55319%25tantek@cs.stanford.edu charter announced 2006-06-28: http://www.w3.org/mid/44A2FE14.4050003@w3.org ==> 16 months, 0 days discussion (under new chairs) started on or before 2008-04-15: http://www.w3.org/mid/0CB208C5034ED243871C102FD3043F77081FD69210@G6W0268.americas.hpqcorp.net charter announced 2008-12-03: http://www.w3.org/mid/1228325152.16562.101.camel@localhost ==> 7 months, 18 days discussion started on or before 2010-08-23: http://www.w3.org/mid/4C7CF525.9070605@inkedblade.net charter announced 2011-12-14: http://www.w3.org/mid/7FB41DD8-58BC-41E6-A178-A96931573426@w3.org ==> 15 months, 21 days So other than the unusually fast rechartering right after you and Peter took over chairing the group, the norm seems more like 16 months. > 5. "rechartering" implies a change of WG name, Scope or co-chairs, > process then identical to current process. > > if no "rechartering", it is a "charter update" that implies only > the submission by the WG, based on minuted consensus, of a new list > of actively maintained documents to W3M no longer than 7 days after > consensus. W3M updates Charter and notifies ACs for review of the > proposed Charter within 48 hrs. Without formal objection, the > updated Charter is tacitly adopted after 4 weeks. W3M and WG > address non objecting comments until both WG and commenter are > happy with answer or there is evidence commenter has not responded > to changes on his request. > > An update request sent by a WG to W3M must have a companion > document listing all documents actively maintained by the WG at the > time of the request, from Editor's Draft to REC. The document > should display for each document: > - if it was started since the last charter update > - its current status (including Test Suite's status) > - if it is dropped in the update, reasons why it is dropped > That companion document is sent to ACs "for information" > with the update notification. I think the idea of distinguishing here is a good one, but I don't think I agree with the distinction that you've drawn. I think the major/minor distinction might just be a subjective distinction best left to the discretion of the team. For example, I don't think a change of chair should require a full rechartering. (I don't think it currently requires a new charter.) Likewise, changes to things like the decision process, communication procedures, confidentiality, or other rules of the working group needs to fit in to one category or the other. Might the reality be that the major/minor distinction ends up being simply whether it's been a long time since the last update, and the bulk of the substance of the charter needs to be revisited? -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
Received on Saturday, 14 September 2013 20:09:51 UTC