Initial draft of a CG/WG Staging process doc

[bumblefudge]

At W3C TPAC 2024, I witnessed @hlflanagan and @wseltzer leading joint CG/WG sessions masterfully implementing sam goto's process doc to direct traffic and provide guidelines for discussion. Serendipitously, @plehegar suggested our CG consider a similar process for how to promote some CG work to normative work in future WGs and/or existing WGs in W3C.

As a potential process addendum, I "forked" @samuelgoto 's doc and adapted it a bit to work we do here. I would suggest we discuss this before making any decisions about chartering normative groups but after establishing some more formal CG charter docs.

EDIT: tantek asked me for a diff to compare my opinionated initial draft to samgoto's inspiration doc, which I used a github gist to produce here. (See tutorial here if you'd like to use this trick in the future to compare any two versions of a file and create a GH permalink for the diff!)

[dmitrizagidulin]

Historical side-note -- the process doc itself has roots in WHATWG's process, which itself was inspired by ECMA's https://tc39.es/ process docs.

[samuelgoto]

Historical side-note -- the process doc itself has roots in WHATWG's process, which itself was inspired by ECMA's https://tc39.es/ process docs.

Yeah, +1. I think I capture that in this section here [1]?

[1] https://github.com/w3c-fedid/Administration/blob/main/proposals-CG-WG.md#prior-art

[dmitrizagidulin]

Yeah, +1. I think I capture that in this section here [1]?

Oh, whoops, thanks :) (I'll leave the comment for lazy ppl like me :) )

[bumblefudge]

@cwilso I never thanked you on list for your helpful email to the list about CG<-->WG relations. I figured I should ping you here for visibility. if you or any interested parties on the AB and/or AC have the bandwidth, feel free to watch this repo, comment on its PRs, etc etc. We are discussing a CG charter today, and hopefully the CG<>WG workflow document and one or more WG charters will be discussed as well in the coming weeks.

[samuelgoto]

This looks good enough to land and keep iterating, with @samuelgoto's approval.

LGTM++

I'm excited to bring these diffs to the base and see others use this too! Good stuff @bumblefudge !!

[dmitrizagidulin]

Remaining steps for this PR to be merged: adding the changes requested by Emelia on the call. (add more references to existing FEP process etc)

[dmitrizagidulin]

@bumblefudge Nicely done! That addresses the remaining change requests from @thisismissem on the call. Should be ready to merge (for further discussion by the group).

[ThisIsMissEm]

Yeah, I think that works (granted I'm reviewing on mobile so hopefully I didn't miss anything)