Re: Please Open ISSUE-34 (good standing)

16.09.2014, 21:41, "Robin Berjon" <robin@w3.org>:
> On 16/09/2014 17:03 , Daniel Glazman wrote:
>>  On 16/09/2014 16:13, David (Standards) Singer wrote:
>>>>  I agree that it has problems, that’s why I want to make it an
>>>>  available tool rather than an automatic one
>>  Then I suggest to move, for normal WGs (ie not the TAG nor AB), the
>>  Standing provisions from Process to Charters. I am quite sure this
>>  will mean the extinction of Standing in the near-term future.

Yeah, I agree we should move it to charters...

> I agree. Ideally, I would like the Process document to be short enough
> that it can fit relatively comfortably in someone's head. The problem
> when that is not the case is that people don't read it, or misremember,
> which leads to all manners of things being claimed to be in the process
> when they're not.

Absolutely

> I see where Dave is coming from here, but I don't think that the toolbox
> should be in the Process document. We could easily have a library of
> things that charters (which could also use being shorter and with a lot
> less useless boilerplate) could simply link to.

Yes. In the process document I propose that we have about one line, saying that charters can include requirements on participants. I think it makes sense to state that they must be consistently applied - "what seems fair to the chair" doesn't strike me as quite good enough for open and transparent processes.

But since any such charter still has to get through AC review, I don't suppose we need to guess in advance what rules the AC are likely to think are fair and reasonable, since it is not clear what groups might want.

cheers

Chaals

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 21:08:51 UTC