|
|
| (62 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| This is a proposed template for a Community Group Charter. We recommend that Community Groups have charters as a way to build shared understanding within a group about activities, and to attract new participants who appreciate a clear description of the group's scope and deliverables. | | This [https://github.com/w3c/cg-charter template is now managed on GitHub]. |
| | |
| == Goals ==
| |
| | |
| * What is the mission of the group?
| |
| | |
| == Scope of Work ==
| |
| * Mention topics that are in scope
| |
| * Mention topics known in advance to be out of scope
| |
| * Note: For specifications that the CLA patent section applies to, it is helpful to describe the scope in a way that it is clear what types of technologies will be defined in specifications, as opposed to adoption by reference or underlying technology not defined in the proposed spec. It is also helpful to state if there are no specifications that the CLA patent section applies to.
| |
| | |
| == Deliverables ==
| |
| | |
| * In addition to listing deliverables, it can be useful to provide an initial schedule
| |
| * Specification deliverables for which the CLA patent section applies should be carefully noted as such.
| |
| | |
| == Community and Business Group Process ==
| |
| | |
| * "Anything in this charter that conflicts with requirements of the Community and Business Group Process is void."
| |
| | |
| === Choosing a Chair ===
| |
| | |
| * In development
| |
| | |
| === Decision process ===
| |
| | |
| Recommended text:
| |
| | |
| * "This group will seek to make decisions when there is consensus. When the Chair puts a question and observes dissent, after due consideration of different opinions, the Chair should record a decision and any objections. Participants may request a vote in this case if they feel the Chair has not accurately determined the consensus of the group. If there is additional support for the call for a vote, the Chair will call for a vote and the decision will be based on the majority vote. It is the Chair’s responsibility to ensure that the decision process is fair, respects the consensus of the CG, and does not unreasonably favor or discriminate against any group participant or their employer."
| |
| | |
| '''Note:'''
| |
| | |
| * If your decision process is ''not'' consensus-based, it is important to indicate that clearly, and to describe the decision process you will use.
| |
| | |
| === Transparency ===
| |
| | |
| Recommended text:
| |
| | |
| * The group will conduct all of its technical work on its public mailing list.
| |
| * Groups that operate primarily on a mailing list may wish to include: "Any decisions reached at any face to face meeting are tentative and must be confirmed on the mail list."
| |
| | |
| == Dependencies or Liaisons ==
| |
| | |
| * Are there any significant dependencies on other groups (inside or outside W3C) or materials?
| |
| | |
| == Amendments to this Charter ==
| |
| | |
| Recommended text:
| |
| | |
| * "The group can decide to work on a proposed amended charter, editing the text using the Decision Process described above. The decision on whether to adopt the amended charter is made by conducting a 30-day vote on the proposed new charter. The new charter, if approved, takes effect on either the proposed date in the charter itself, or 7 days after the result of the election is announced, whichever is later. A new charter must receive 2/3 of the votes cast in the approval vote to pass. The group may make simple corrections to the charter such as deliverable dates by the simpler group decision process rather than this charter amendment process. Changes to the goals, scope, deliverables, decision process or rules for amending the charter always require use of this charter amendment process."
| |
