You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Problem statement: Currently it is very difficult if not impossible in some cases to discover from a Working Group charter:
what were the poll results that helped create that charter?
was there any feedback, or objections formal or otherwise?
how was any dissent handled?
what were the changes if any from the polled charter to the adopted charter?
was there any follow-up repolling of poll respondents and what were the results?
This makes it difficult for W3C members, and especially difficult for newcomers to W3C, to understand the context and work that went into chartering a working group, why some things in a charter are the way they are, and a deeper understanding of how & why the working group was created.
Proposed solution: A good way to provide transparent and historically discoverable paths to these artifacts of chartering working groups would be better cross-hyperlinking/discoverability (follow-your-nose style) explicit links from, to, and between the following:
Working Group (WG) charters (both current and all previous)
The Advisory Committee (AC) charter WBS poll (and results) that presumably approved each charter, with perhaps also links to prior charter polls that failed.
A brief document summarizing critical feedback (noted issues, requested changes, required (Formal Objection) changes) on each charter poll when it closed
A thorough document explaining how each item of critical charter feedback was handled. Charter proposals need a “Disposition of comments” similar to a Candidate Recommendation (CR) that is Proposed (PR) to transition to a Recommendation.
What precise changes (diffs) were made between a proposed (polled) and eventually adopted charter to handle each item of critical feedback
If any such changes were made between a polled and eventually adopted charter, when were the folks who voted on the proposed charter repolled with the modified proposed charter with those changes (dated permalink to modified proposed charter as of time of repolling)
What were the repolling responses both in aggregate (totals x for, y against, z abstain) and individually (explicit +1/-1, passive or active abstention), same granularity as the original proposed charter poll Results Page
When/where was the repolling result announced (permalink to email)
The charter history pages of our work groups (Working Groups and Interest Groups" list at least two things:
the charters (link text "chartered")
the calls for participation (link text "YYYY-MM-DD until YYYY-MM-DD"
Charters are supposed to cross-link from each other (at the bottom under section "About this charter" there's a history table), in case someone starts from them and not from the group's page.
The call for participation includes references to the chartering in the form of pointers to previous announcements, diff from previous charter, link to the AC review results and in case of formal objection(s) a link to the disposition of comments and resolution.
We hope that this central place of how information can be found is sufficient so as to not require the significant overhead work to create new documents, brief or thorough, to compile existing information. Also, the Team Contact(s) is/are listed on the Group's page, the charter, and are here to help anyone wondering about the history of a group or a charter.
Problem statement: Currently it is very difficult if not impossible in some cases to discover from a Working Group charter:
This makes it difficult for W3C members, and especially difficult for newcomers to W3C, to understand the context and work that went into chartering a working group, why some things in a charter are the way they are, and a deeper understanding of how & why the working group was created.
Proposed solution: A good way to provide transparent and historically discoverable paths to these artifacts of chartering working groups would be better cross-hyperlinking/discoverability (follow-your-nose style) explicit links from, to, and between the following:
cc: @ianbjacobs, @dontcallmedom
(Originally published at: https://tantek.com/2024/204/b1/)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: