Introduce a formal Charter Refinement phase

[frivoal]

See https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/580

---

Preview | Diff

[caribouW3]

It seems unclear that a "Formal Objection" can happen during the process of writing the charter. How would we "formally" register an objection? Who can make such an objection?

(Editorial: s/until the close of the/until the closure of/ )

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Issue 580, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: The Process CG resolves to adopt PR 851

The full IRC log of that discussion

<plh> subtopic: Issue 580
<plh> Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/851
<cpn> Florian: We discussed last time, it's quite a large change
<cpn> ... It's about initiation of chartering. Current process is lightweight, says the team does it
<cpn> ... Want to frame the team practices better. When team has a charter ready, team sends a message identifying the chair of chartering phase, details of how to contribute
<cpn> ... Details around handling of FOs during this process. We collapse these together, to discuss in full
<cpn> ... Can formally request the team starts this process
<cwilso> q+
<cpn> ... A couple of requests for tweaks from last time
<cpn> ... One was requested clarification, a bit tangential. When rechartering, if modifications are substantial, use the same process
<cpn> ... If modifications are minor, team can do this without AC review
<cpn> ... If team feels AC review is beneficial, they can still do that. This clarification is in
<plh> q+ to mention 6 months max extension
<cpn> ... Other is about advance notice, when team is starting to think about something and wants feedback
<cwilso> q- later
<cpn> ... We used "review notice" as the term for start of chartering phase, so there was a request to clarify that there's both formal charter review with AC, and also earlier to ask feedback
<cpn> ... Ted made a few editorial suggestions, one remains needing clarification
<cpn> PLH: The team isn't required to send advance notice, it's a "may"
<cpn> Florian: If team had to send notices, they'd be a few days apart, not helpful
<cpn> ... If there's long time between, it makes sense
<fantasai> +1 to deferring to /Guide
<cpn> ... Additional detail could go in the Guide, don't know if we want to be stricter in the Process
<cpn> PLH: When to trigger an AC review. The team considers group extensions beyond 6 months as substantive, requiring AC review
<cpn> ... That policy is in the guide. Don't see a need to change the practice
<cpn> Fantasi: It's reasonable practice, also fine not to have as requirement in the Process
<plh> ack c
<plh> ack p
<Zakim> plh, you wanted to mention 6 months max extension
<cpn> cwilso: Thanks for all the work on this. I reviewed it, I think it's good. I appreciate the "charter review must include" bit, more effective than current process
<plh> q+
<cpn> ... Do we want to try it out before putting into the Process?
<florian> q+
<cpn> PLH: We haven't decided when to ship the next version of the Process, decide around TPAC
<cpn> ... I tried to get Team comments on this, no comments, so so far so good
<cpn> ... Still want to get feedback from Coralie
<cwilso> q+
<cwilso> q-
<cpn> ... Happy to experiment, we're already changing practice. But if not documented in the Process it needs to be in Guide, for the staff
<cwilso> q+
<plh> ack plh
<plh> ack florian
<cpn> Florian: We could experiment with it. One thing that would be needed in the process is any FO raised in the chartering phase waits for that to end, so FOs get processed together
<cpn> ... Process has requirements on how fast to process, so we'd lose that
<cpn> ... Another part is the explicit right to demand team to start a charter and object
<cpn> ... It's not formally a Team decision, so not clear you can formally object, before in the process
<cpn> ... But still can try it, and think we should
<cpn> PLH: I can take an action item to add it to the Guide, so we can experiment
<cpn> Florian: Alternatively, I could make a branch of the process with the text before merging it?
<cpn> PLH: Either way is fine
<cpn> ... This seems like the biggest process change for 2024. We have enough time to experiment before TPAC
<plh> ack cw
<cpn> cwilso: I'd hope we don't have too many FOs during that early draft stage
<cpn> ... If you're going to try the Process, it's important to note to the AC so it's different, so the usual suspects pay more attention to the review notices
<cpn> ... I sometimes don't look before the advance notice comes out, as not clear what to do. This is an improvement
<plh> q+ to mention https://www.w3.org/2024/03/charters-in-dev.html
<plh> ack fan
<cpn> fantasai: Decisions made about the charter before AC review aren't FOs so that mechanism doesn't work if it's not in the process
<cpn> ... i think it should be rolled into the process, and delay that if necessary. it shouldn't take long
<plh> ack plh
<Zakim> plh, you wanted to mention https://www.w3.org/2024/03/charters-in-dev.html
<plh> -> https://www.w3.org/2024/03/charters-in-dev.html Charter dev
<cpn> PLH: To improve comms with AC, ensure they're up to date, I asked Carine to create a view of the strategy repo, showing charter pipeline
<cpn> ... We're figuring out where to put it, making a few tweaks
<TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
<RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/08-w3process-minutes.html TallTed
<florian> q+
<cpn> ... Any objections to merging this to the main branch?
<cpn> Florian: Ted just joined. Do you agree with my responses?
<plh> ack florian
<cpn> Ted: I can file a follow up issue
<cpn> PLH: Objections to merging 851?
<cpn> (none)
<cpn> fantasi: This issue needs to go to the AB
<fantasai> PROPOSED: The Process CG resolves to adopt PR 851
<fantasai> RESOLVED: The Process CG resolves to adopt PR 851

[frivoal]

@caribouW3 What is unclear about it? Formal Objections can already happen to any decision, not just AC Reviews, even if that's the most common place for them to be seen. This is covered in https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#registering-objections. If anything is still unclear about this particular situation after reading that, can you give more details?

[dontcallmedom]

Noting that https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/450#issuecomment-2118895191 may be a good illustration of what a charter refinement process might induce (incl its disposition of comments) if/when this proposals gets broader visibility and review