[IG Charter] Another W3M review for the IG Charter

[ashimura]

In addition to the comments from PLH, we got the following comments from Ralph as well:

• [ ] "Specification" vs "Document"
  • Section 2 is the first occurrence of the word "specification" and says that the IG does not develop normative specs. That section -- appropriately -- also does not suggest that the IG develops informative specs.
  • However, the Section 3 boilerplate then encourages the IG to request horizontal review of "specification"s that it apparently will not produce.
  • For IGs we should s/specification/document/ and drop the reference to standards-track transitions including CR.
  • See PR 1008 to address this point.
• [ ] Description on the Marketing TF (and other TFs)
  • The Marketing TF wiki page does not appear to explain what the Marketing TF is or does.
  • I recommend adding a descriptive section, or a pointer to another page where all the WoT IG Task Forces are described. Such a [pointer to a] list of TFs would also be useful on the WoT main wiki.
  • See PR 1006 to address this point.
  • We should add descriptions to the TF wiki pages (and/or TF HTML pages).

[sebastiankb]

"Specification" vs "Document"

I'm agree. The term specification does not make sense. In my view we should also remove the introduction text in Chapter 3 since is mainly about normative deliverables.

Description on the Marketing TF (and other TFs)

When decided to keep marketing as IG then we should provide a text. @egekorkan can you provide a proposal?

[ashimura]

As confirmed during the Marketing call on Nov-16, there is already PR 1006 to address this point.

[ashimura]

resolved by PR #1008

[egekorkan]

IG charter is active once again and this issue is outdated. Closing