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