Document considerations when migrating work from a CG to a WG

[ianbjacobs]

Hi @dontcallmedom,

Based on your draft, here's a TOC that comes to mind for me. I would be happy to edit your pull request with that in mind if you give me the thumbs up.

Ian

1. Background. (From time to time, groups that have been incubating want to move work to the standards track…etc.) a) Scope: general purpose considerations
2. Preparation a) Is the work ready for standardization? (cf readiness best practices) b) Is there consensus the CG wants to transition? Will the CG continue in some form? c) What is the target WG? Does it exist or will it need to be chartered? d) Community continuity: Will CG participants join the WG? Will primary contributors join the WG? e) Deliverable continuity: e.i How will CG and WG work together moving forward? e.ii Are licensing commitments in place?
3. Operations
   • WG charter text regarding (1) relationship between CG and WG (2) Taking up work from a CG. May be template or specific depending on charter.
   • IPR (FSA in CG)
   • GitHub (co-ownership)

[dontcallmedom]

another thought: the process of making a github org adapted to W3C Rec-track should be documented somewhere; not sure if this is in this page (which alludes to some of it already) or elsewhere, but documenting what I can think of atm:

• get systems team to run a backup of the org repos
• make w3cbot a co-owner of the org (useful for integrating the IPR manager among other things)
• update validate-repo to monitor the repos of that org
• set up the horizontal review tracking labels on the relevant repo(s)
• set up the horizontal-admin team to allow relevant Horizontal Review groups to set the said labesl