diff --git a/process/charter.html b/process/charter.html index 07c1f6bec..d881d2199 100644 --- a/process/charter.html +++ b/process/charter.html @@ -9,14 +9,27 @@ @@ -27,30 +40,13 @@
Member → The Art of Consensus → -

How to Create a Working Group or Interest Group

-
+

How to Create a Working Group or Interest Group

This Guidebook is the collected wisdom of the W3C Group Chairs and other collaborators.

-
-

Also On This Page →

- -
- -

0. Tracking and Process Requirements

-
-

Tools and templates

+

Tools and templates

-
-

Related Resources

+ +

The W3C Process describes +the lifecycle +of chartered groups. At a high level, W3C approves a new Working +Group or Interest Group charter after a series of reviews intended to +improve the quality of the charter and generate interest in the +work. The reviews typically happen in this order:

+ -
-

Charters are formally developed by the Team, with community input. - In practice, ideas for new charter development come from a range of sources: Community Groups, Interest Groups, Workshops, input to the Strategy Incubation Pipeline. - Team documents proposals in the Strategy Team's Incubation Pipeline (Funnel), - and moves them through the pipeline (left to right) as they progress.

-

In particular, Community Groups and Interest Groups may develop draft charters (or draft the "scope" and "deliverables" section of a charter) - when they identify work items that they believe are ready for the Recommendation track.

+

In this document we describe the operational aspects of these reviews.

-

The Strategy Team identifies a charter shephered, through the process documented in the "chartering" column of the public Pipeline. - Each area of exploration or possible new work is shown as a GitHub issue. - Interested community members are invited to add comments to the issue thread with information or expressions of support or concern, and to share pull requests on draft charters.

+

Timing: Please note that these reviews take time, and people working on charters should expect the entire process to take multiple months.

-

For both new charters and recharters, please create an issue in the Strategy Repo and add - a card for the issue to the Incubation Pipeline as soon as possible.

+

Note: Group closures are addressed in other documentation.

-

Keep the Project Management Lead (for existing groups) and/or the Strategy Lead (for new groups) in the loop.

+

New Charters

-

TiLT, the W3C Technical issues Lead Team, is in charge of - the technical decisions described in the W3C Process, - decided or determined by the Team (Types - of Decisions).

+

Discussions for new work happen in a variety of venues, including Member discussions, Workshops, Working / Interest / Community Groups, and the Team.

-

For existing groups, the Chair and Team Contact should work with -the WG to create a new charter and develop rationale as to why the -change is necessary. This reason need not be overly formal. For -instance, it may be no more complex than, "we need three more -months to complete our deliverable commitments and are fairly -certain we can complete them within those three months." If the -Working Group or the Chair proposes changes to the charter, they -should send them to the Team Contact, who should see that the -request is reviewed by the Project and Strategy Leads in a timely manner.

+

Within the Team, the Strategy Team manages the charter development process. The Strategy Team tracks charters through the process via the pipeline tool.

-

Team Contacts and others proposing charters should start from the Charter Template, rather than copying - an existing Group charter, as the template reflects the latest guidance from Membership and TiLT on common matters of structure.

+

Charter Preparation

+

These are the recommended steps for any party preparing a charter for a new Working Group or Interest Group:

- +
+
Check readiness
+
For a Working Group charter, review W3C Recommendation Track Readiness Best Practices and Tips for Getting to Recommendation Faster.
+
Draft charter
+
Use the charter template to create a draft charter, ideally on GitHub. This is where substantive discussion of the charter should take place, including issues and pull requests. Note: There are ongoing discussions about making it easier for people to find draft charters, e.g., by using a single GitHub repo for all draft charters.
+
Inform Strategy Team
+
When ready (e.g., after sufficient discussion among stakeholders has taken place), inform the Strategy Team by +creating a new charter issue in their pipeline. The Strategy Team will use this issue to provide updates on the charter's progress through the process. Discussions of the charter's content should continue to take place in the charter's own repo.
+
-

1. New Groups: Advance Notice

+

Strategy Team Role

- +

When a new charter issue has been raised, the Strategy Team Lead assigns a staff member to shepherd the charter through the remainder of the early process. The Strategy Team typically discusses proposed charters at its regular meeting or on its mailing list. Note: If the Strategy Team Lead cannot identify a staff member, there may be delays in advancing the charter through subsequent reviews.

-

W3C Process requires Team notify the Advisory Committee when a -charter for a new Working Group or Interest Group is -in development. The exact timing of the advance notice may vary from -charter to charter. In practice, if the advance notice would precede -the formal call for review by only a short delay, we skip the advance -notice.

+

The charter shepherd (on behalf of the Strategy Team) roles include:

-

The Team should consult How to -Send Advance Notice of Work to the Advisory Committee for more -information and a template announcement.

+
+
Evaluate readiness
+
Let the proponents know if the charter is not well-formed (per the template), if it is perceived to be harmful to the Web, or if it is not a priority at the current time.
+
Request advance notice to AC
+
If and when satisfied with the charter, raise awareness by requesting that the Communications Team send an advance notice to the W3C Advisory Committee; for details see +how to + send advance notice of work to the Advisory Committee. Record in the pipeline issue that advance notice has been sent. -

2. Existing Groups: Minor Changes and Extensions

+
Timing: The exact timing of the advance notice may vary from charter to charter. In practice, if the advance notice would precede the formal call for review by only a short delay, we skip the advance + notice. +
+
Request horizontal review
+
Soon after, or in parallel, initiate horizontal review. This is done by + adding the "Horizontal review requested" label to the issue in the pipeline. +
Timing: Horizontal reviewers will usually respond within two weeks, though it is wise to allow for additional time. The charter shepherd may use the team-horizontal list to reach all the horizontal reviewers. +
+
Prepare for TiLT Review
+
Horizontal and other reviews may result in changes to the charter or objections. The charter shepherd should note in the request to TiLT the horizontal review status (including completed reviews and any timeouts). +
+
Request approval from TiLT
+
When the charter shepherd is satisfied that as much progress as possible has been made, they request approval from TiLT. Record in the pipeline issue that a TiLT decision has been requested. TiLT informs the charter shepherd of their decision in the pipeline issue. +
Timing: Allow approximately 2 weeks, but see Timing of responses from TiLT for details. +
+
-

The Chair(s) and Group may make requests for minor changes and extension via their Team Contacts(s), who will forward the requests to the Project and Strategy Leads. Include a justification, which might be as simple as "we need three more months to complete our deliverable commitments and are fairly certain we can complete them within those three months."

+

If approved, the charter shepherd works towards Advisory Committee Review.

-

3. Charter Creation

+

Advisory Committee Review

-

TL;DR: use the current Charter template for both new charters and recharters - it will prompt for the inclusion of Patent Policy language and otherwise help you meet the -list of charter requirements in the Process.

+

In this part of the process, the charter shepherd (on behalf of the Strategy Team) roles include:

-

For existing groups, the charter assistant helps in producing the list of exclusion drafts. Use the proper shortname in the URL.

+
+
Prepare for AC Review
+
Work with the Communications Team to organize Advisory Committee review of a charter (see implementation details for the review).
+
Monitor AC Review
+
Once the AC is underway, monitor responses and manage any formal objections. Ensure that the charter receives sufficient support from the Membership. +
Timing: + +
+
Manage changes resulting from review
+
As a result of review, make any requested very minor changes (in place) to the charter. If substantive changes are proposed, the initiate review of those proposed changes. In either case, the Team follows a process for managing changes to charters after review.
+
Request approval from TiLT
+
Once the review has ended and formal objections addressed, the charter shepherd requests approval from TiLT. Record in the pipeline issue that a TiLT decision has been requested. TiLT informs the charter shepherd of their decision. +
Timing: Allow approximately 2 weeks, but see Timing of responses from TiLT for details. +
+
-

The Team Contact or shepherd works with the Strategy Team and interested community participants to -draft a provisional charter. See the -Charter template -and -W3C Process Document for the -list of charter requirements. -The Team Contact may wish to share drafts of the provisional -charter with relevant interest groups and interested community of W3C members prior to Advisory Committee -review.

+

If approved, the charter shepherd then works with the Communications Team to announce the decision.

-

Timeline: due to the discussion needing to happen with the community and the need - for horizontal review, this takes 1.5 to 4 months for existing groups.

+

Existing Groups

-

3.1 Horizontal Review

+

Here we describe the operational aspects of extending or modifying the charter of an existing group.

-

Once there is agreement on a draft charter, ideally among Team Contact(s), candidate chairs(s), relevant interest groups, and interested community members, seek review from the Strategy Team and horizontal reviewers by: -

  1. Opening a Chartering issue in the Strategy Repo,
    2. -
  2. Adding a card for the issue to the Incubation Pipeline,
    3. -
  3. Adding the Horizontal review requested - label to the issue, and
    4. -
  4. Optionally, announce the new charter-in-progress to team-strategy and/or on a Strategy Team call.
    5. -

+

In these processes, a group's Team Contact typically plays the role of the charter shepherd.

-

Horizontal reviewers will usually respond within two weeks, though it is wise to allow for additional time. -

-

If you need to reach the horizontal reviewers as a group, use the team-horizontal list.

+

Request for short-term extension

-

When the Charter is brought to TiLT, the Team Contact should note the horizontal review status in the Pipeline. -If team was unable to obtain timely review, then the Team -Contact can move ahead with the charter nevertheless, and should -report this to TiLT.

+

The W3C Process describes the charter extensions and when they may occur. No Advisory Comittee review is required for short-term extensions. Since 2015, the Team has adopted a policy on group charter end dates: a charter may only be extended without AC review for six months or less, otherwise it must recharter.

-

4. Charter Approval by -TiLT

+

For a short-term extension, the charter shepherd roles include:

-

TiLT approval of a charter is required unless there are no substantive changes from a previously approved charter.

+
+
Request approval from TiLT
+
The charter shepherd requests approval of the short extension by TiLT. +
Timing: Allow approximately 2 weeks, but see Timing of responses from TiLT for details. +
+
Request extension notice
+
If the decision is positive, request that the Communications Team announce an extension.
+
Let group know
+
Inform the group that its charter has been extended.
+
-

The TiLT process for approving new Charters is described in the -(Team-only) documentation on TiLT evaluation of Proposed Charter and AC Reviews. -The Strategy or Project Lead (or delegate) informs the W3C Communications Team of TiLT approval -by sending email to w3t-comm@w3.org.

+

Request for rechartering

-

Timeline: this takes 2 weeks.

+

A group recharters when it wishes to change its charter or extend it longer than six months.

-

Charter Extension and Update

+

In these processes, the roles of the charter shepherd include:

-

Note: Is the Group aware that its charter is being extended? Please inform the group before discussion within TiLT.

+
+
Record group decision
+
The group should discuss the situation and record a formal decision to request extension or rechartering.
+
Follow process for creating a charter
+
Rechartering is handled almost the same as new charters. Not that, in addition to any content changes, the charter may need to be updated if the charter template has changed. Furthermore, the template tool will prompt for the inclusion of Patent Policy language and otherwise help you meet the + list of charter requirements in the Process. For existing groups, the charter assistant helps in producing the list of exclusion drafts. +
+
-

W3C resolved to adopt the Policy on W3C Group Charter End Dates, effective 18 June 2015.

+

Implementation Details

-

W3M amended the policy on 17 November 2021: charter extension can only be up to 6 months beyond the end date of the current charter. Any request for more than 6 months - MUST treated as rechartering.

+

The following sections are mostly intended as instructions to the Team and are included here for transparency.

-

TiLT keeps following those resolutions.

+

Sufficient Member support for a charter

-

If TiLT resolves to extend a charter, the Strategy or Project Lead (or delegate) sends e-mail to the -W3C Communications Team in the form of an extension announcement; see the -charter extension template.

- -

The W3C Communications Team:

- +

+Generally, the Team will expect to receive reviews for Charter +proposals from at least 5% of the Membership. If this 5% threshold is +not met, the Charter may still be approved, but additional scrutiny is +warranted, and resource allocation may be limited. Additionally, the +Team will continue to consider the number of declarations of intent to +participate or implement the output of the Working Group.

-

Updating the Charter

- +

Given the diversity of work underway in the Consortium, including +groups that focus on horizontal reviews (e.g. accessibility, security, +and internationalization), as well as technologies that are initially +focused on by some segment of the Web's stakeholders, there are times +where exceptions to this practice may be warranted. In those cases, +the Team will document reasons why the exception is warranted.

-

5. Advisory Committee Review of the -Charter

+

Tips to speed up the process

-

Per section 4.3 -of the W3C Process, The Team must solicit Advisory Committee review of every new or substantively modified Working Group or Interest Group charter. -The Team is not required to solicit Advisory Committee review prior to a charter extension or for substantive changes to a charter that do not affect the way the group functions in any significant way. The review period must be at least 28 days. -Any Advisory Committee representative may request an extended review period of any new or substantively modified Working Group charter, if submitted with a Member’s comments in response to the Call for Review (see extension template). Upon receipt of -any such request, the Team must ensure that the Call for Participation for the Working Group occurs at least 60 days after the Call for Review of the charter. -

+

Parallelize where possible:

-

Timeline: this takes 5 weeks minimum. Formal objections to a charter will - add more time.

+ + + -

5.1 Organizing the Call for Review

+

Organizing the Call for Review

Note: Team Contacts should ensure that their Working Group participants are aware of the review.

@@ -292,9 +285,9 @@

5.1 Organizing the Call for Review

be sent at least three business days before the anticipated start date of the review. The request must include:
    -
  1. A URI to the proposed charter (Note: avoid using github.io links); this charter is public during the AC review.
    2. +
  2. A w3.org URI to the proposed charter (not a github.io URI). This charter is public, and must not be altered, during the AC review.
  3. The list of significant changes to a revised charter - (per section "Advisory Committee Review of a Working Group or Interest Group Charter" of the Process Document). It is useful to include a diff between the current and proposed charters (You may wish to use the "Advisory Committee Review of a Working Group or Interest Group Charter" of the Process Document). It is useful to include a diff between the current and proposed charters (You may wish to use the HTML diff tool).
  4. In case of renewal of an existing charter, whether the group scope has changed. E.g., are there any new deliverables with licensing obligations under the W3C Patent Policy? The current group participants would need to re-join the group once the revised charter is approved.
  5. A recommended review start date and duration (at least 28 days according to the process document)
    6. @@ -304,7 +297,7 @@

    5.1 Organizing the Call for Review

    -

    The W3C Communications Team encourages the Team Contact to include in +

    The W3C Communications Team encourages the shepherd to include in the request a draft Call for Review, created by using this @@ -349,50 +342,24 @@

    5.1 Organizing the Call for Review

  6. Send the same email new-work@ietf.org. Note: public-new-work@w3.org used to cc new-work@ietf.org but due to mailing list configuration issues, we stopped that practice.
-

Note: Starting in January 2007, W3C makes -all charters public during Advisory Committee review.

- -

5.2 Evaluating the -Review Results

- -

TiLT evaluation of the review results proceeds the same way as TiLT evaluation of -Review Results.

- -

Beginning in July 2014, the Director instituted an experimental -practice when it comes to approving Working Group Charters. The Team still follows this practice.

- -

-Generally, the Team will expect to receive reviews for Charter proposals -from at least 5% of the Membership. If this 5% threshold is not met, the -Charter may still be approved, but additional scrutiny is warranted, and -resource allocation may be limited. Additionally, the Team will continue to consider -the number of declarations of intent to participate or implement the -output of the Working Group.

- -

Given the diversity of work underway in the Consortium, including -groups that focus on horizontal reviews (e.g. accessibility, security, -and internationalization), as well as technologies that are initially -focused on by some segment of the Web's stakeholders, there are times -where exceptions to this practice may be warranted. In those cases, -the Team will document reasons why the exception is warranted.

+

Managing Changes to Charters After Review

-

5.3 Managing Changes to Charters

+

If there are only very minor changes to a charter resulting from the review, the (future) decision includes the original charter URI and an explanation of the changes and their rationale.

-

Very minor changes may be made in place to a charter. If there are only very minor changes to a charter resulting from the review, the (future) W3C decision includes the original charter URI and an explanation of the changes and their rationale.

If substantive changes are proposed in response to charter review, Team must send the charter with proposed changes, the HTML diff, and an explanation of the changes and their rationale to all who reviewed the charter, copying the member-charters-review@w3.org member-archived mailing list, accompanied by a request for response (with a deadline of a minimum one week response time) if reviewers have concerns or if the changes would alter their reviews. If the work continues or derives from an existing Group or community effort, Team should also send the HTML - diff and a public rationale to that Group or community. These communications should note that the W3C has not yet approved the charter.

+ diff and a public rationale to that Group or community. These communications should note that W3C has not yet approved the charter.

Suggested wording: Please let us know by [date+1 week] if you have concerns or if this change would alter your review.
-

If anyone expresses new concern in response to the re-review, Team may attempt to resolve the concern (with re-review), formally open a new AC charter review, or the W3C Council may treat it as an objection and overrule it.

+

If anyone expresses new concern in response to the re-review, Team may attempt to resolve the concern (with re-review), formally open a new AC charter review, or the W3C Council may be treat it as an objection and overrule it.

If there are substantive changes, before any announcement, the team:

  1. Mints a new URI for the version of the charter that includes the changes. In the "Charter History" section of the charter, please link to the original (reviewed) charter.
    2. -
  2. Modifies the original charter in place with the following status sentence at the top: +
  3. Modifies the original charter in place with the +following status sentence at the top:
    <p class="todo">This charter has been replaced by <a>[a newer version]</a>.</p> @@ -400,12 +367,11 @@

    5.3 Managing Changes to Charters

-

6. -Announcement of W3C decision, Call for Participation

+

Announcement of W3C Decision, Call for Participation

-

Per section 4.3 of the W3C Process, any Advisory Committee representative may request an extended review period of any new or substantively modified Working Group charter, if submitted with a Member’s comments in response to the Call for Review. Upon receipt of any such request, the Team must ensure that the Call for Participation for the Working Group occurs at least 60 days after the Call for Review of the charter.

+

Preparation by the charter shepherd

-

Please ensure that the following are done and you have documentation before requesting to announce a group:

+

The charter shepherd ensures that the following are done and the following documentation is available before asking the Communications Team to announce a group.

  1. TiLT has approved the group, whether or not preceded by an Advisory Committee Review
    2. @@ -448,9 +414,9 @@

    6.

    Timeline: this takes a week at most.

    -

    6.1 Organizing the W3C Decision, Call for Participation

    +

    Organizing the W3C Decision, Call for Participation

    -

    The Team Contact sends a draft announcement (combing the W3C Decision and Call for Participation) to the W3C Communications Team (w3t-comm@w3.org) (using the template as a starting point, see sample announcement). The announcement must indicate:

    +

    The charter shepherd sends a draft announcement (combining Decision and Call for Participation) to the W3C Communications Team (w3t-comm@w3.org) (using the template as a starting point, see sample announcement). The announcement must indicate:

    -

    The Head of W3C Communications (or explicit delegate) must approve the W3C Decision and Call for Participation before the W3C Communications Team sends it to w3c-ac-members@w3.org. The W3C Communications Team SHOULD announce the W3C decision within two weeks after the end of the AC review (or send an email setting new expectations). An announcement is +

    The Head of W3C Communications (or explicit delegate) must approve the W3C Decision and Call for Participation announcements before the W3C Communications Team sends it to w3c-ac-members@w3.org. The W3C Communications Team SHOULD announce the W3C Decision within two weeks after the end of the AC review (or send an email setting new expectations). An announcement is made if the proposal is approved or rejected.

    If the group is approved, it is a good @@ -499,7 +465,7 @@

    6.1 Organizing the W3C Decision, Call for Participation

    practice that the W3C Communications Team follows-up on the Advance Notice in public-new-work to close the loop for the public record.

    -

    6.2 After sending the W3C Decision, Call for Participation

    +

    After sending the W3C Decision, Call for Participation

    After sending the W3C Decision and Call for Participation:

    @@ -533,59 +499,38 @@

    6.2 After sending the W3C Decision, Call for Participati href="https://www.w3.org/2004/02/invited_expert">Team Policy for Invited Experts.

    -

    Timeline for Charter creation

    +

    Announcement of Extension

    -

    Depending on the complexity of the charter, the time to draft and get a charter approved by W3C may vary greatly. - Each section above gives expectation on how long it takes. This section gives guidance on how to manage the overall timeline. -

    +

    When requesting that the Communications Team announce a charter exension, use the charter extension template. -

      -
    1. You should be planning for 4 months to get a charter approved for a group, if starting from nothing. - More may be needed if the scope or deliverables are controversial. -
      2. -
    2. Some of the steps can be done in parallel. -
        -
      • Request the advance notice from the Strategy Lead as soon as you have something to point to.
        • -
      • Start the horizontal reviews of the charter as soon as the scope, deliverables, and dependencies - parts of the charter are stable enough. Ping the horizontal reviewers on a weekly basis.
        • -
      • Start working on resolving any formal objection on a charter as soon as those received. Don't wait - for the end of the AC review period. -
        • -
      • Prepare a draft of your proposed W3C approval announcement before getting the approval from TiLT
        • -
      -
      3. -
    3. Make sure to have the Project Management Lead (for existing groups) and/or the Strategy Lead in the - loop.
      4. -
    +

    The W3C Communications Team then:

    + - +

    The Communications Team (possibly working with the Team Contact) also modifies the Charter in place as follows: +

    + +

    When a group Chair is (re)appointed or resigns, shortly before/after the announcement to w3c-ac-members@w3.org [then forwarded to chairs@w3.org] (sample emails [1][2]), Team Contact (or W3C Communications Team) modifies the charter, including:

    + -

    Revision History

    +

    Revision History

    -
    Coralie Mercier for -Philippe Le Hégaret, guidebook editor
    - plh@w3.org
    - Yep, it's on GitHub. -
    +

    Feedback is to @w3c/guidebook and + is welcome on GitHub