[wg/png] PNG WG recharter

[svgeesus]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Charter:

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

• Existing
  • [x] Existing WG recharter
  • If this is a charter extension or revision, link a diff from previous charter, and any issue discussion:

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: None

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

Anything else we should think about as we review?

[svgeesus]

Not ready for horizontal review. Has been checked by PNG WG chair. Now being checked by the WG.

[svgeesus]

• https://github.com/w3c/PNG-spec/issues/334

[frivoal]

Had a quick read, and it looks perfectly reasonable and well written to me.

[himorin]

Itemize in normative deliverables seems weird... First title line might be better to be moved out from itemize, like what template does.

[plehegar]

(PING might be pass on this one until we get someone interested within a week)

[ruoxiran]

no comment from APA.

[svgeesus]

Itemize in normative deliverables seems weird... First title line might be better to be moved out from itemize, like what template does.

Oh good catch, will do

[svgeesus]

Markup corrected on the deliverables, looks much better now.

[svgeesus]

@r12a @xfq any comments from an I18n perspective?

[himorin]

no comment or request from i18n

[svgeesus]

Update:

• TAG review is complete with no issues.
• Issue tidying and CfC to request CR is ongoing

[svgeesus]

@plehegar said:

(PING might be pass on this one until we get someone interested within a week)

If PING is unable to review, please tag as privacy review completed so I can ask TiLT for approval to send for AC review.

[plehegar]

(no comments from PING)

[plehegar]

[[ Each specification should contain sections detailing security and privacy implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users, as well as recommendations for mitigations. There should be a clear description of the residual risk to the user or operator of that protocol after threat mitigation has been deployed. ]]

This was reverted in the template, so this needs an update.

should say: [[ Each specification should contain sections detailing security and privacy implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users. ]]

[svgeesus]

Thanks for noticing, fixed

[svgeesus]

AC Review started 7 Sept 2023

[plehegar]

One minor tweak.

[himorin]

4th sentence in 8. Decision Policy contains "Director" (at the last), which I believe we tried to omit from everything recently.

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 Director.

[svgeesus]

Thanks @plehegar and @himorin both items are now corrected

[svgeesus]

Charter announced, CFP sent 23 Oct 2023