[wg/webperf] Web Performance rechartering

[caribouW3]

Charter Review

Charter: Web Performance Working Group

• Existing WG recharter

Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, and security. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.

Communities suggested for outreach:

Known or potential areas of concern:

• Privacy

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? (this strategy funnel issue, a different github repo, email, ...) Github issues

Anything else we should think about as we review?

cc @nicjansma @yoavweiss

[himorin]

(note, not as i18n review comment)

Draft charter as Markdown seems (for me) to be based on quite old charter template, like HR in coordinate section. I'd propose to align with the newest template.

[caribouW3]

The HTML version is now ready at https://www.w3.org/2023/07/webperf.html

[npdoty]

Is this ready for horizontal review?

The draft charter is not yet ready for horizontal reviews.

Maybe that's changed, but it would be to edit/strike that out if it's changed.

[plehegar]

Diff

[himorin]

no comment or request from i18n (for updated HTML version)

[ruoxiran]

no comment from APA.

[plehegar]

(PING has comments, coming soon)

[plehegar]

• (nit) typo in first sentence (dup’ed “is to”)
• (nit) typo in 2nd par of 3. Deliverables (Candidate Recommendation -> Candidate Recommendations)
• its surprising the group doesn’t intend to advance anything to Recommendation status (Section 3). See also https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/781
• similarly the group doesn’t require implementations, just intents to implement. See also https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/432
• Note in Section 7. Communication; “The meetings themselves are not open to public participation, however.” Does public mean “non-working group” members? Or non-W3C members? was surprised to see it mentioned in the charter. Does this mean they mean this to be more common practice in Web Perf vs other groups?
• Similarly, it also seems odd that the group reserves the right to use member-confidental mailing lists “when a participant requests such a discussion”. Again the concern is that the group intends to make whats (I think is?) an exception into common practice

[caribouW3]

About section 7, the intent is to say that although all the work and records are accessible to the public, participation to meetings is not public. Should that be phrased differently? public really means public there. For the last point, since it never happens, I'll remove the mention of special request.

[caribouW3]

Possible amendment to the charter would be to describe "living standard" as either "stay in Candidate Recommentation and upgrade using snapshots" or "Recommendation to be updated with Candidate changes", as the process offers both possibilities.

[svgeesus]

Overall this looks good. Couple of minor points:

In success criteria, the part about mitigations and residual risk was removed from the template (because of complaints) so should be removed here also.

discretion of the Chairs or the Director.

Drop Director

[siusin]

Possible amendment to the charter would be to describe "living standard" as either "stay in Candidate Recommentation and upgrade using snapshots" or "Recommendation to be updated with Candidate changes", as the process offers both possibilities.

Agree. I think we need a little clarification on this.

[plehegar]

About section 7, the intent is to say that although all the work and records are accessible to the public, participation to meetings is not public. Should that be phrased differently? public really means public there. For the last point, since it never happens, I'll remove the mention of special request.

Looking at this further, the webperf charter follows the charter template. So, section 7 of the webperf charter is fine as-is. If it's unclear, we should really push the change into the charter template.

[plehegar]

[[ All decisions made by the group should be considered resolved unless and until new information becomes available or unless reopened at the discretion of the Chairs or the Team. ]]

s/the Chairs or the Team/the Chairs./

to follow https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/commit/e78c83e1f417baba5e436a68a919a8ba6381513b

[plehegar]

Also re-align with https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/commit/c41b4d6aa09ea0f8db15e78b89712e3ab4cd2753 and https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/commit/a13d26fa352bcda6bb780b96863a295cb33f9482

[plehegar]

[[ Timeline Next meeting: TPAC 2023 (Sevilla) in hybrid mode. ]]

This needs update.

[caribouW3]

I think I fixed the latest comments. I removed the "living standard" term and used a description instead, and also mentioned Rec with candidate changes.

[himorin]

the latest entry in charter history seems the same with one previous. it should be https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2023JulSep/0027.html

[plehegar]

(approved to start the AC review)

[caribouW3]

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2023JulSep/0045.html

[himorin]

minor fixes:

• note right under 11.1 should be removed
• this charter need to be added to the history table