Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

One repo for ALL. Use w3c/AB-memberonly #179

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

One repo for ALL. Use w3c/AB-memberonly #179

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ee69069
One repo for ALL. Use w3c/AB-memberonly
plehegar Aug 17, 2023
ca10454
Announcement should make sure it's using w3c/charter-drafts
plehegar Aug 17, 2023
4d734fc
Update process/charter.html
plehegar Aug 17, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
13 changes: 9 additions & 4 deletions process/charter.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -178,13 +178,16 @@ <h2>3. <a id="creation" name="creation">Charter Creation</a></h2>

<h3 id="horizontal-review">3.1 Horizontal Review</h3>

<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:
<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>
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

<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>
Copy link

@fantasai fantasai Aug 18, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

<li>Adding a card for the issue to the <a href="https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2">Incubation Pipeline</a>,</li>
<li>Adding the <a class="IssueLabel-big" style="background: #9ae504;" href="https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues">Horizontal review requested</a>
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>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Currently charter announcements go to the AC and chairs mailing lists, why have a different mechanism for this?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder whether copies of charters in different places will create confusion. I wouldn't mind the following:

  1. Before their adoption, charters live on GitHub.
  2. Once adopted, there's a snapshot copied to w3.org.
  3. The GitHub instance is marked as superseded with a link to the version on w3.org.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@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.

Copy link
Member Author

@plehegar plehegar Aug 17, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@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.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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?

<li>Optionally, announcing the new charter-in-progress to team-strategy and/or on a Strategy Team call.</li>
</ol>

<p>Horizontal reviewers will usually respond within two weeks, though it is wise to allow for additional time.
</p>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -300,6 +303,7 @@ <h3>5.1 Organizing the Call for Review</h3>
<li>A recommended review start date and duration (at least 28 days according to <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#CharterReview">the process document</a>)</li>
<li>A URI to the review of the proposed charter in the <a href="https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues">Strategy GitHub repository</a></li>
<li>The name of the Team-only mailing list for comments</li>
<li>All proposed charters must have a copy in <a href="https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts">w3c/charter-drafts</a> and point there for GitHub issues.</li>
</ol>
</li>
</ul>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -595,6 +599,7 @@ <h3>Revision History</h3>
<li><strong>2015-09</strong>: Updates to Process Document section numbers and titles. Removed "Activities" and "Coordination Groups" which are no longer referenced in the <a href="https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/">2015 Process Document</a>.</li>
<li><strong>2016-02</strong>: Updated mostly to reflect that the Groups DB interfaces with IPP and that systeam creates new WGs/IGs; pointed to most recent sample announcement for Director's Decision and Call for Participation; updated workflows to match current practice; further removed or clarified that "Activities" are no longer in Process..</li>
<li><strong>2018-01</strong>: Took latest process into account</li>
<li><strong>2023-05</strong>: TiLT took over from W3M.</li>
</ul>

<hr>
Expand Down