On the Thursday, November 25 conference call, Jason White, William Loughborough and I (Chuck Letourneau) discussed the draft charter.
@@discuss government issues and impact??? the other documents we've been working on that weren't in our charter? or is this for the report that Gregg and Chuck are working on? if so, do we point to that report from the charter?
We felt that this information should not be in the charter. It is more appropriate for the end-of-charter (eoc) report, and indeed is already mentioned there. We did not discuss if the charter should point to the eoc.
- promoting implementation of accessibility improvements in technology of the Web;
- analyzing implementation and impact of guidelines and recommending next steps;
Concerns were expressed about the first two scope items that seemed to cross over into the domains of other WG's, specifically EO and maybe Web Characterization. This discussion sort of mirrored our discussion the day before about the possibility of leading GL in a more strictly technical direction.
Suggested changes to 4.1 are shown above. As with our previous discussion, it was felt that specifics of guidelines and techniques needing work should not be enshrined in the charter.
* demonstration of usable materials by informal usability testing with a variety of potential readers
Something about this third bullet doesn't scan properly. No matter how many times I read it, I can't figure out what is being suggested. I suspect it just needs a rewording.
William suggested a change from a June 2000 face-to-face to correspond to the May 15 WWW9 in Copenhagen.
Jason and William had similar concerns to Gregg and mine about enshrining the following in the charter:
- must shepherd at least one open issue through to consensus by:
- posting a summary of arguments about an open issue;
- inviting appropriate experts to discuss the issue;
- if needed, adding the issue to the agenda for a teleconference or face to face meeting;
- ensuring that the Chairs call consensus on an issue;
- working with the editors to make the appropriate additions or changes to deliverables.
Again, they felt that it might be a good working principle for the group, but not a requirement. Another suggestion was to clarify the status of membership in the charter. Perhaps the charter should say something like: Anyone is welcome to subscribe to the mailing list, but subscription does not necessarily imply membership on the Working Group. Working Group membership requires active participation as described in 11.1
11.2 IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) No comments.
Jason and William got into an excellent discussion of what the WG may want to accomplish with respect to XML during the new charter period.