Introduce a formal Charter Refinement phase #851
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
frivoal
added
Agenda+
|
It seems unclear that a "Formal Objection" can happen during the process of writing the charter. How would we "formally" register an objection? Who can make such an objection? (Editorial: s/until the close of the/until the closure of/ ) |
TallTed
suggested changes
Apr 15, 2024
This was referenced Apr 17, 2024
frivoal
commented
Apr 23, 2024
Part of dealing with w3c#580
TallTed
suggested changes
May 7, 2024
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
plehegar
added
Needs AB Feedback
|
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<plh> subtopic: Issue 580<plh> Github: https://github.com//pull/851 <cpn> Florian: We discussed last time, it's quite a large change <cpn> ... It's about initiation of chartering. Current process is lightweight, says the team does it <cpn> ... Want to frame the team practices better. When team has a charter ready, team sends a message identifying the chair of chartering phase, details of how to contribute <cpn> ... Details around handling of FOs during this process. We collapse these together, to discuss in full <cpn> ... Can formally request the team starts this process <cwilso> q+ <cpn> ... A couple of requests for tweaks from last time <cpn> ... One was requested clarification, a bit tangential. When rechartering, if modifications are substantial, use the same process <cpn> ... If modifications are minor, team can do this without AC review <cpn> ... If team feels AC review is beneficial, they can still do that. This clarification is in <plh> q+ to mention 6 months max extension <cpn> ... Other is about advance notice, when team is starting to think about something and wants feedback <cwilso> q- later <cpn> ... We used "review notice" as the term for start of chartering phase, so there was a request to clarify that there's both formal charter review with AC, and also earlier to ask feedback <cpn> ... Ted made a few editorial suggestions, one remains needing clarification <cpn> PLH: The team isn't required to send advance notice, it's a "may" <cpn> Florian: If team had to send notices, they'd be a few days apart, not helpful <cpn> ... If there's long time between, it makes sense <fantasai> +1 to deferring to /Guide <cpn> ... Additional detail could go in the Guide, don't know if we want to be stricter in the Process <cpn> PLH: When to trigger an AC review. The team considers group extensions beyond 6 months as substantive, requiring AC review <cpn> ... That policy is in the guide. Don't see a need to change the practice <cpn> Fantasi: It's reasonable practice, also fine not to have as requirement in the Process <plh> ack c <plh> ack p <Zakim> plh, you wanted to mention 6 months max extension <cpn> cwilso: Thanks for all the work on this. I reviewed it, I think it's good. I appreciate the "charter review must include" bit, more effective than current process <plh> q+ <cpn> ... Do we want to try it out before putting into the Process? <florian> q+ <cpn> PLH: We haven't decided when to ship the next version of the Process, decide around TPAC <cpn> ... I tried to get Team comments on this, no comments, so so far so good <cpn> ... Still want to get feedback from Coralie <cwilso> q+ <cwilso> q- <cpn> ... Happy to experiment, we're already changing practice. But if not documented in the Process it needs to be in Guide, for the staff <cwilso> q+ <plh> ack plh <plh> ack florian <cpn> Florian: We could experiment with it. One thing that would be needed in the process is any FO raised in the chartering phase waits for that to end, so FOs get processed together <cpn> ... Process has requirements on how fast to process, so we'd lose that <cpn> ... Another part is the explicit right to demand team to start a charter and object <cpn> ... It's not formally a Team decision, so not clear you can formally object, before in the process <cpn> ... But still can try it, and think we should <cpn> PLH: I can take an action item to add it to the Guide, so we can experiment <cpn> Florian: Alternatively, I could make a branch of the process with the text before merging it? <cpn> PLH: Either way is fine <cpn> ... This seems like the biggest process change for 2024. We have enough time to experiment before TPAC <plh> ack cw <cpn> cwilso: I'd hope we don't have too many FOs during that early draft stage <cpn> ... If you're going to try the Process, it's important to note to the AC so it's different, so the usual suspects pay more attention to the review notices <cpn> ... I sometimes don't look before the advance notice comes out, as not clear what to do. This is an improvement <plh> q+ to mention https://www.w3.org/2024/03/charters-in-dev.html <plh> ack fan <cpn> fantasai: Decisions made about the charter before AC review aren't FOs so that mechanism doesn't work if it's not in the process <cpn> ... i think it should be rolled into the process, and delay that if necessary. it shouldn't take long <plh> ack plh <Zakim> plh, you wanted to mention https://www.w3.org/2024/03/charters-in-dev.html <plh> -> https://www.w3.org/2024/03/charters-in-dev.html Charter dev <cpn> PLH: To improve comms with AC, ensure they're up to date, I asked Carine to create a view of the strategy repo, showing charter pipeline <cpn> ... We're figuring out where to put it, making a few tweaks <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/08-w3process-minutes.html TallTed <florian> q+ <cpn> ... Any objections to merging this to the main branch? <cpn> Florian: Ted just joined. Do you agree with my responses? <plh> ack florian <cpn> Ted: I can file a follow up issue <cpn> PLH: Objections to merging 851? <cpn> (none) <cpn> fantasi: This issue needs to go to the AB <fantasai> PROPOSED: The Process CG resolves to adopt PR 851 <fantasai> RESOLVED: The Process CG resolves to adopt PR 851 |
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
|
@caribouW3 What is unclear about it? Formal Objections can already happen to any decision, not just AC Reviews, even if that's the most common place for them to be seen. This is covered in https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#registering-objections. If anything is still unclear about this particular situation after reading that, can you give more details? |
hober
reviewed
May 30, 2024
|
|
||
| This <dfn>charter review notice</dfn> must include: | ||
| * A short summary of the proposal. | ||
| * The location of the [=charter draft=], which must be public. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suspect SHOULD would be better than MUST here. There may be some limited scenarios in which keeping a potentially-controversial charter draft in Member-space is prudent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Process CG resolved: Defer this question to @plehegar
|
Noting that w3c/strategy#450 (comment) may be a good illustration of what a charter refinement process might induce (incl its disposition of comments) if/when this proposals gets broader visibility and review |
chrisn
reviewed
Jul 16, 2024
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
frivoal
added
Closed: Accepted
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See #580
💥 Error: 500 Internal Server Error 💥
PR Preview failed to build. (Last tried on Jul 24, 2024, 3:17 PM UTC).
More
PR Preview relies on a number of web services to run. There seems to be an issue with the following one:
🚨 HTML Diff Service - The HTML Diff Service is used to create HTML diffs of the spec changes suggested in a pull request.
🔗 [Related URL]([object Object])
If you don't have enough information above to solve the error by yourself (or to understand to which web service the error is related to, if any), please file an issue.