New version to settle open issues

[iherman]

The following changes have been made on the charter

• Reformulated the scope section to avoid a reference to class 4 and the process document while maintaining (I believe) the intention. This should fix issue 7 insofar as there is no reference to the process document (which is related to the change of existing document and not to new versions). By doing so, I believe the whole paragraph is cleaner now as for the scope of the WG
• Replaced "security" with "security or privacy" for the exception on new features for our existing specs. This should fix issue 5.
• To my spite I rolled back on the change on the success criteria section, because the strategy team did not act on [template] Simplify the success clause in the charter template charter-drafts#716. This means we are in sync with the charter template (although a new sync with the template will have to be done anyway if we move ahead). This should fix issue 1.

@brentzundel @jandrieu @philarcher @msporny

Fix #7
Fix #5
Fix #1

---

Preview | Diff

[iherman]

Note that, with this PR, all pending issues are closed. It is a good state to be in to start the formal proceedings. I am sure new issues will come to the fore...

[msporny]

Suggested change

	two independent interoperable implementations</a> of every feature defined in the specification,
	two independent interoperable implementations</a> of every mandatory feature defined in the specification,

[iherman]

I am uneasy about changing this: this is the text of the charter template, and both the strategy team and the AC is touchy about changing that. I would prefer to keep it as is (and sync up with the template before we go to the AC).

If we really want to change that, the right way is to raise an issue by the strategy team on changing the template itself. (That is what I tried, and it did not gain any attention 😒)

[msporny]

Alright, I won't push back hard on this since I think the current WG knows what we mean based on a very long history in the WG. I do want to bring it up on the charter template, though, because I do think it leaves too much room for interpretation and could be a process attack vector. Do you have a link to the appropriate repo where I should raise the issue?

[msporny]

Suggested change

	Candidate Recommendation, each normative specification must have an open test suite of every feature
	Candidate Recommendation, each normative specification must have an open test suite of every mandatory feature

[iherman]

See above.

[msporny]

LGTM w/ minor nits on exactly which features need to be tested.