Proposal for update to documents

[david-christiansen]

As discussed via email, I'd like to update a few things here and am interested in knowing what you think.

Here's a summary of the changes:

• Rename the group to the Technical Working Group (I'd like to call all non-board groups "working groups" rather than a mix of "task force", "committee", "track", etc)
• Remove references to the biweekly standups that don't actually happen
• Clarify that the Pre-HFTP step is intended to do things like discover prior art, so it doesn't feel like bureaucratic make-work
• Put the proposal process summary first, to make the document less overwhelming
• Add a provision in the charter that members who disappear can be replaced
• Add dates to the charter so that we can track the three-year terms. I don't know those dates - please comment here with yours!
• Remove the specification that shepherds are assigned at random, and simply stating that they're assigned (so we can e.g. take people's life situations and workloads into account)
• Clarifications in the charter related to the two kinds of voting (membership and proposals)

Given that our problem is more lack of proposals than too many, we can also consider simplifying the formality of the proposal process. I'll save that for another round.

[david-christiansen]

Rendered documents:

• Charter
• Proposal process

[david-christiansen]

Thanks for the comments @simonpj - I'll update to clarify and improve the text.

[david-christiansen]

@simonpj I think that I've addressed your concerns with the latest revisions. What do you think?

[david-christiansen]

Thanks for all the feedback - I'm going to work on a revision, and I'll get back with it.

[david-christiansen]

I think #36 makes this irrelevant. I've done my best to incorporate feedback here into the new document.