Give some details about DoCs in charter refinement

[frivoal]

The concept of a disposition of comment is understood, but understanding of what it needs to cover varies depending on who you ask. This sets a minimum bar for what it needs to have.

---

Preview | Diff

[ianbjacobs]

Although I have concerns about the level of operational detail, I understand the rationale.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Clarifying DoCs, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Merge PR 996

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Clarifying DoCs
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/996
<fantasai> florian: Clarifying that it needs to highlight areas of disagreement
<fantasai> ... We're adding this because Ian's proposal doesn't use "disposition of comments", but rather describes the necessary information.
<fantasai> ... So we made a PR to clarify to the same level
<Ian> q+
<fantasai> plh: We've had "disposition of comments" for centuries... actually I guess we don't have it in the Process.
<fantasai> florian: Fuzziness makes it hard to know what happened, but this requires clarifying. Using "highlight" in the figurative sense.
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 996
<fantasai> Ian: For things we're already doing, some cases it's in the Guide, works fine, leave it in Guide
<fantasai> ... for some others, I see the point of a minimal obligation, even though ppl do it today, communicate clearly about it
<fantasai> ... in some cases will agree and others won't