Working Group and Interest Group Charters Comment 2

Comment

From: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 17:46:08, Ian Jacobs Comments on Process 2016

5.2.6 Working Group and Interest Group Charters

  The new text about a group that takes up work from another
  group is introduced without explanation. It is also sufficiently
  long that it deserves its own subsection.
  Proposed:
    - Create a new subsection 5.2.6.1 with title:
        "When a Working Group takes up a Specification Initiated Under Another Charter"
    - The section should start with "For every Recommendation Track
     deliverable...." and end with "The Director must not issue a
     call for participation less than 60 days..."
    - The section should be moved to the bottom of 5.2.6. That means
      that the text "See also the charter requirements of section 2
      and section 3 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]." would be
      followed immediately by "An Interest Group charter may include
      provisions regarding participation,..." and the rest of the
      text of section 5.2.6. Then insert 5.2.6.1.
    - The following are editorial suggestions for the text of the
      future 5.2.6.1:
      * Start by explaining what this section covers. Proposed
        "From time to time, a W3C Working Group takes up work that
        was initiated but not completed by another Working Group.
        This section of the process document describes how W3C
        ensures that the hand-off occurs in a manner consistent
        with the W3C Patent Policy, and with minimal disruption
        to the work."
     * "For every Recommendation Track deliverable that continues
       work". I find it awkward to speak of a deliverable
       continuing work. Proposed:
          When the Director proposes that a Working Group take up a
          Recommendation Track deliverable initially published under
          any other Charter (including a predecessor group of the
          same name) the charter MUST include the following
          information for each deliverable:
             - The title, stable URL, and publication date of any
               Adopted Working Draft that will serve as the basis
               for work on the deliverable
             - The title, stable URL, and publication date of the
               most recent Reference Draft or Candidate
               Recommendation that triggered an Exclusion
               Opportunity per the Patent Process
             - The stable URL of the Working Group charter under
               which the most recent Reference Draft or Candidate
               Recommendation was published.

  Discussion
  JJ: it seems late in the process with no discussion in CG or AB.  
  Probably should be held over for next rev.
  CMN: I think that a lot of this section should be rewritten, 
  but it took a lot of discussion to get to any kind of agreement, 
  and I am loath to mess with it until people have seen it in place 
  for a while. So I'm going to pass on this for now, but would like 
  further suggestions on making the whole chapter clearer.
  SZ Assessment: The text in question was tortuously developed
  with comments from the PSIG and, while editorial improvements are
  likely possible, getting the level of review and agreement that the 
  current text has could take a very long time. So, without examining
  the merits of the suggested change it is rejected, without prejudice,
  for timing reasons. I could be considered for a later version of the
  Process Document.
  Deferred