Pick a number of weeks

[frivoal]

We merged earlier pull requests leaving "X weeks" as an unspecified number. Make that 8.

---

Preview | Diff

[ianbjacobs]

I would much rather it be 4 weeks than 8. The goal is to end up with a process that does not require as much time as a Council process. We use 4 weeks for other charter review processes; why 8 weeks here?

[frivoal]

Nothing happens during that time, so whether it's 4, 6, 8, or 13.5 doesn't cost us anything different if the count of 5 members is not reached, and it terminates as soon as it is reached.

I think there should be a bound, so that it doesn't count if 4 people agree in quick succession, and the 5th one comes around 17 years later. But while 4 is fine most of the time, if it overlaps with TPAC, end-of-year holidays, or some other thing that take many people away from work for a long time, 4 feels a bit short. I'm proposing 8 as something reasonably short that works even at times where something else is happening.

[ianbjacobs]

Nothing happens during that time, so whether it's 4, 6, 8, or 13.5 doesn't cost us anything different

This slows down the Consortium. That's my concern.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Number of weeks to object to Charter Refinement rejection, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Adopt 8 weeks in PR 994

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Number of weeks to object to Charter Refinement rejection
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/994
<Ian> q+
<plh> Florian: proposing to set to 8 weeks
<fantasai> scribe+
<fantasai> ... this is for when the Team rejects starting the phase
<plh> ack ian
<fantasai> ... and when deciding to abandon the work
<fantasai> ... making it a longer period isn't a problem because this is a case where we're doing nothing, so we can continue to collect responses while we're doing nothing
<fantasai> Ian: We can change the time, just like for AC Review. Process can allow us to set the time period.
<fantasai> ... Secondly, we're talking about Charter things, and AC review is only 4 weeks. It's a well-established number.
<fantasai> ... This is a review.
<fantasai> florian: It's not a review.
<fantasai> Ian: It's charter-related. Review the situation to decide whether to object.
<fantasai> ... This is not a more detailed or complicated review period than AC Review
<fantasai> plh: Ian, you're misguided.
<plh> ack fantasai
<plh> q+
<Ian> q+
<florian> q+
<fantasai> Discussion of whether 4 weeks is enough ... might be if there was an announcement to AC, but currently we're not requiring that
<fantasai> florian: It's not just that nothing happens during the 8 weeks. Nothing happens at the end of it, either.
<fantasai> ... the only point in bounding is to make sure it doesn't get silly, like the 5th person objects 2 years
<fantasai> plh: Ian, you're making parallel between AC Review and this. But you should be making a parallel between decision and potential appeal
<fantasai> ... when we announce a new WG, we don't have to do anything unless someone objects
<plh> ack plh
<fantasai> Ian: My assumption was that Team has to tell Members about refusing to do something
<fantasai> ... my concern is about formal process of announcing Team decision to say no
<fantasai> florian: Announcement is that you have stopped, it's over.
<fantasai> Ian: Decision, starts a clock.
<fantasai> ... Team remains responsible for monitoring, instead of closing the case.
<fantasai> ... but I can live with this
<fantasai> plh: Can we agree to merge?
<fantasai> Ian: I can live with 8
<plh> queue=
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Adopt 8 weeks in PR 994