Reflect WG independence in charter.

[barath]

This PR addresses concerns regarding the current charter draft and aligns it with the W3C Charter Template and with 126 W3C WG charters both past and present that I reviewed whose language is akin to this PR, ensuring that the WG charter reflects the independence of the Solid WG.

[csarven]

This PR addresses concerns

Where were these concerns raised? Are they documented and accessible to the CG?

---

Using the W3C Process as guidance, in particular Reopening a Decision When Presented With New Information, there is neither new information here or sufficient deliberation by the CG.

The existing text incorporated an understanding and the needs expressed by a set of charters that's also shared by the Solid WG charter. This was discussed numerous times in CG meetings and PRs. It also draws from https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/262 where there is work on improving the template to that end so that there is better guidance available to where it may be applicable to.

---

I hope and expect that we’ll receive valuable submissions to the working group from multiple avenues, including the CG.

The original text addressed that adequately:

The Working Group will not adopt new proposals until they have matured through the W3C Solid Community Group or another similar incubation phase.

---

This PR was merged 28 minutes after it was created, without CG's consent.

The understanding in the CG has been that the group will advance issues/PRs to, and it would then be assigned to @pchampin (W3C) for merging. See for example: https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2023-04-12.md#overview-of-todays-agenda and how the CG has been processing issues/PRs for the charter. This has served well for the group - working closely, in the open, with W3C staff - and has the additional benefit of any oversight, e.g.:

The proposed WG charter is still under horizontal review and making changes along the lines proposed in this PR without CG's consent is unacceptable behaviour.

The group is working under the assumption that all participants are aware of the rules and understand expected behaviors of open standards development, in addition to Solid CG's contributing guidelines, norms, and so forth. If there is unclarity or support is needed for better participation, everyone is welcome to reach out for guidance.

---

Reverting commit.

[woutermont]

The audacity 🤯 This is plainly a coordinated attempt of some people to ignore the community's input! It is blatantly against the W3C's spirit of open standards!

First of all, I second everything @csarven already pointed out. There is a way concerns are raised, reflected upon, and worked through towards consensus, and @barath, @acoburn and @justinwb know that all too well.

Secondly, there is nothing in the W3C charter template that warrants these changes to "align with". To the contrary, as @csarven pointed out, there is an ongoing effort at W3C to add the relation between CG and WG to the charter template; and this is nothing new. The W3C's guide on Recommendation Track readiness, for example, gives precisely the text this PR removed as an example of how such relation could be expressed. Multiple WG charters already include it (e.g. Web Platform WG, Devices and Sensors WG, MiniApps WG).

Similarly, the W3C's guide on CG to WG transitions explicitly states that "[t]he charter of the target Working Group should address ... [t]he nature of the working relationship between the Working Group and the Community Group (if any) for any deliverable originated by the Community Group." It also points out that the CG's consensus on the transition "should include expectations about the working relationship with the Working Group moving forward." It is very clear that the relationship between the Solid specification and the Solid CG is not "historical", as @acoburn claims it to be. The CG and WG each have their role to play, and while their work process can be largely independent, it is the CG that decides if and when a specification should transition.

I would be very interested in what other members of the community think about this, and what W3C staff have to say about such practices.

[melvincarvalho]

As the founder of the CG, my vision was for it to be an inclusive platform, accommodating both formal and casual initiatives. I recognize the WG's independence and its more formal nature, it's essential for it to chart its own path. The CG can then align itself accordingly, after the WG is formally approved.

[melvincarvalho]

Reverting commit.

@csarven, I noticed the recent commit was reverted. It would be appreciated if, in the future, we could discuss changes to commits that have received multiple approvals. @barath put significant effort into this. Since we all share the goal of advancing the Solid working group to REC status, let's collaborate and ensure the group has the autonomy it needs. Thank you for understanding.

[elf-pavlik]

This PR was discussed in depth during 2023-08-23 CG meeting: https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2023-08-23.md#reflect-wg-independence-in-charter .

I think @oolivo suggested that he could make a new PR with alternative wording. If this PR comes this week I believe we should be able to process it by the CG call next week and properly resolve the raised concern.

[csarven]

Indeed, agree to review since it became apparent that the text might not be sufficiently clear for those outside of the CG, and W3C staff and well-versed AC representatives are already familiar with W3C charters, processes, and so forth, for whom the existing text is demonstrably clear.

---

To follow-up on the CG discussion and to triple clarify:

The Solid WG charter is proposed by the Solid CG, and so naturally changes require CG's approval.

The Solid Process / Editors Team (ET) says absolutely nothing about writing, updating, or approving charters (or anything remotely applicable) or bypassing the CG altogether for any matter whatsoever.

On a related note: W3C does say that (WG) chairs help develop charters with W3C staff contact. Nevertheless, the practice in W3C is still that participants/members of a group are involved, so it is not even the case with chairs running wild and making calls without checking with the rest of the group.

Doing this 28 minuter while we are in the middle of a horizontal review of the charter, without involving the CG, or the CG chair, or the W3C staff is unprofessional and problematic. Involving the group would have shown good faith and a shared understanding of our common goal.

---

Once this charter moves to the w3c/charter-drafts repo, we'll eliminate these kinds of shenanigans.

[melvincarvalho]

we'll eliminate these kinds of shenanigans

@csarven I understand the intent behind the statement, but I believe the use of the word 'shenanigans' might not convey the desired professionalism in this context. IMHO, the charter reads better with the changes made and the effort that was put in by @barath and others.

[woutermont]

Alright, I think most of us see by now that the way in which the PR was processed was clumsy, to say the least. Indeed, whatever one's interpretation of the W3C Process, the Solid Process and/or the new Solid CG charter, editors would need to keep any substantial change (without exception for their own) open for review for somewhere between 5 days and 2 months. Not 28 minutes.

That having been acknowledged, we should really turn to the more constructive vibe that could be felt during todays meeting. There it became clear that there was some uncertainty over the exact meaning of the phrase.

[@pchampin:] My understanding is the current text makes it look like the WG would be subordinated to the CG which is not the intention of the text and not the way WG should work under W3C

[@oolivo:] Does the WG or the CG decide something is mature enough? I read it as the WG is not allowed to take any new proposals until the CG says it's okay.

@csarven then explained what the current text meant to say (and what not), upon which @oolivo reacted with "that's clear":

The rest of the W3C documentation does not give that hint [of subordination]. WGs decide themselves; proposals can come from anywhere. If we're working on a spec in CG and we decide it's mature, CG can propose it and WG can decide. If not in CG, anyone working outside the CG can go through the same process and propose, and WG will decide.

To me, three things are important to capture:

• Proposals don't start from scratch in the WG. They accept proposed work items only if they deem them stable enough to work with. Proposals thus need an incubation phase.
• One obvious incubation phase is the CG: a W3G groups specifically tasked with incubation. Whenever the CG thinks they have a stable enough draft, they can propose it to the WG, which can accept or deny it on their own terms.
• Other less obvious incubation phases are not excluded. Work from other CGs, or other thinktanks that work in a democratic and open way, can just as well propose work items to the WG, on which the latter can agan decide.