Conversation
|
cc @fantasai |
| label to the issue, and</li> | ||
| <li>Optionally, announce the new charter-in-progress to team-strategy and/or on a Strategy Team call.</li> | ||
| </ol></p> | ||
| <li>Creating an issue in <a href="https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly">w3c/AB-memberonly</a> to alert the AB and our Members.</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Currently charter announcements go to the AC and chairs mailing lists, why have a different mechanism for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder whether copies of charters in different places will create confusion. I wouldn't mind the following:
- Before their adoption, charters live on GitHub.
- Once adopted, there's a snapshot copied to w3.org.
- The GitHub instance is marked as superseded with a link to the version on w3.org.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@chrisn , the optional announcement is part of the internal team process. We don't expect everyone in the Team to follow AC or chairs mailing list.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ianbjacobs the proposed (during AC review) and approved charter do live on w3.org, including for historical reasons. This proposal only intends to clarify where the GitHub instance lives while it's in development before the charter gets approved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @plehegar,
The proposal says "Moving/Copying the draft charter..." That's the part that I want to avoid. Rather than moving or copying, all draft charters should just be on GitHub.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not worried about internal team things (my comment on that was only to point out whether team-strategy needs a link) - rather the use of AB-memberonly for alerting the AB and members
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure why we should be having issues in AB-memberonly to track reviews - I think these SHOULD be filed, but it would seem natural to put them in the charter-drafts repo, with clear indications when stages change?
Co-authored-by: Chris Needham <[email protected]>
| <p>Once there is agreement on a draft charter, ideally among Team Contact(s), candidate chairs(s), relevant interest groups, and interested community members, seek review from the Strategy Team and horizontal reviewers by:</p> | ||
| <ol> | ||
| <li>Moving/Copying the draft charter into the <a href="https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/">charter-drafts Repo</a>, naming it using the convention [YYYY]/[shortname-name]-[group-type].html .</li> | ||
| <li>Opening a <a href="https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/new?assignees=&labels=Evaluation%3A+untriaged&template=04-Chartering.md&title=">Chartering issue</a> in the <a href="https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues">Strategy Repo</a>,</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These issues should be filed in charter-drafts, not strategy. The point of having a single repo is to have a single place where everyone knows the charter drafting discussion is happening (and only charter drafting). Leaving the draft in one repo and the issues in another is not helping.
Also, mixing up strategy discussions and charter drafting issues is also not helpful, imho. Charter drafting is not strategy by a long shot. Let's keep them separate so people can discuss strategy and new frontiers in the strategy repo, and discuss charter drafting in the charter drafting repo.
| <ol><li>Opening a <a href="https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/new?assignees=&labels=Evaluation%3A+untriaged&template=04-Chartering.md&title=">Chartering issue</a> in the <a href="https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues">Strategy Repo</a>,</li> | ||
| <p>Once there is agreement on a draft charter, ideally among Team Contact(s), candidate chairs(s), relevant interest groups, and interested community members, seek review from the Strategy Team and horizontal reviewers by:</p> | ||
| <ol> | ||
| <li>Moving/Copying the draft charter into the <a href="https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/">charter-drafts Repo</a>, naming it using the convention [YYYY]/[shortname-name]-[group-type].html .</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it should be OK for people to do the drafting work in the chartering repo. It's also OK if people want to start elsewhere, but having a consistent repo to host a given charter as it is revised is helpful, and to the extent people want to do it, it seams reasonable to allow it.
Triggering horizontal review on the draft should be done by filing an issue requesting review, not by putting the file in the repo.
|
update: my current thinking is to abandon this PR. We have a board to summarize which ongoing charters are being worked. We did receive pushback on using a single repository as well. We do report on the ongoing charters during AB-led sessions as well. |
5 participants
This is meant to help with w3c/strategy#421