Description
Hi,
I have been trying to apply the text proposed in section "Lifecycle of Chartered Groups" to the current chartering of a WG.
While the first part is relatively common (getting the proposal in shape, sending the advance notice, getting horizontal reviews), I've found some difficulties implementing it.
Specifically:
- in section "initiating...":
-
Charter Facilitator is not well defined. Is it a team member? Currently our guidebook does not mandate that a single team member takes care of it until the end. It is very common that more than 1 team member working on a (re)chartering. Or is it an external person (or several) proposing the new charter (group chair? CG chair? another person? Again there is often several people involved...
-
Team rejection is not defined. In general, I think that the team will delay the start of the chartering process (i.e. the advance notice) until there's a reasonably well-constructed proposal. The guidebook does not mention anything that could be referred to as a rejection.
- In section "Charter Refinement"
-
Charter facilitator is still unclear, although he's given the confusing role of a Chair person. What does chairing mean in a process where no group is formed and no meeting happens? I find the term Chair in that context very confusing and not useful. Why not sticking with the term "facilitator" and introduce a new one that's confusing ?
-
issues must be "formally addressed". By whom? Who's responsible for evaluating the consensus of the resolutions?
-
"the group is made up of all individuals participating in this process" : the "group" here is undefined. what does "participating" means in that context? Anyone who sends a comment? anyone proposing a resolution? the term "group" usually refers to something implemented with a process for joining/leaving. Is it the same intent here? AC and Team (and public?) individuals joining a formal "group" right after the advance notice?
-
"chair decision to abandon" seems to imply that the chair has super power to drop the case. That would be rather strange, in particular for a WG rechartering, to give such power to a single person.
-
the next NOTE is very hard to parse (disclaimer: I'm not a native speaker) and understand. Also, "misbehavior" is undefined. e.g. Failure to evaluate consensus is not misbehavior... I think.
Finally, I had expected to see the Disposition of Comments sent to the AC prior to the vote, not at the same time, in order to get more opinions on the substantial issues before the vote instead of getting them during the vote. It seemed to me that the problem to solve with all this new wording was to add a milestone to get AC reps involved earlier. If not, why is all that wording in the process document instead of the Guide?