[KI-LC] Charter Approval Process Proposal
Eve.Maler at Sun.COM
Fri May 29 14:27:37 PDT 2009
This looks good. (Other than the ominous 13 steps, and the appearance
of both "shepherd" and "staff" in entirely unconnected fashion. :-)
So the "no more than 30 days" in step 5 is just to ensure that the
request is taken up in a timely fashion, right? I'm guessing we
don't have a particular goal around length of public review once the
charter has gotten onto our dockets, as public review and comment
could have taken place even before the charter was brought to the LC
(and it seems reasonable to encourage such a thing). ??
On May 29, 2009, at 8:30 AM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
> All -
> Following our call on Wednesday, we discussed formalizing a process
> ratification of WG and DG charters.
> Based on the discussion, and in consideration of the Operating
> (section 3.1) , I've worked up the following proposed process:
> 1. The proposed charter template is filled out and
> sent to a staffer (e.g. Joni) to make sure it is
> filled out correctly.
> 2. Once it passes staff review, the staff adds the
> proposed charter to the wiki and notifies the
> LC Secretary that it is ready for LC review.
> 3. The proposed charter is added as a topic to the
> next LC teleconference for initial discussion.
> 4. During the initial LC discussion, one of the
> LC Members volunteers to help shepherd the
> proposed charter through ratification by
> reviewing it as well as guiding the proposers
> through the process.
> NOTE: I suggest that in case no one volunteers,
> the LC Chair will (respectfully) assign it to
> one of the members as deemed appropriate.
> 5. A ratification vote date is set for no more than
> 30 days from when the charter is accepted by
> the LC.
> 6. It is written into the minutes that the charter has
> passed staff review, has been accepted for
> consideration, and the date for the ratification
> vote. The minutes should also include the
> name of the LC shepherd for the record.
> 7. The staff then announce the proposed charter
> on public web pages and discussion lists to
> solicit feedback from the broader community,
> directing comments to the proposer and to
> the named shepherd.
> 8. It is the responsibility of the shepherd to
> review the proposed charter and evaluate the
> merits of the proposed work as related to the
> Kantara Initiative mission and in the context
> of other existing work.
> NOTE: I suggest that this review period
> include close coordination between the
> shepherd and the proposer in order to
> quickly address any issues that might
> arise (e.g. similar work in other groups).
> 9. On the announced ratification date, the
> proposer of the charter joins the LC
> teleconference in which it is officially
> presented for a vote.
> 10. During the time in the agenda for voting on
> the proposed charter, the LC Chair calls for
> discussion and the shepherd presents any
> comments. The discussion is then open to the
> full LC, including participation of the proposer.
> 11. The Chair calls for a motion to either vote
> on the proposed charter immediately, or
> to defer the vote until a future date (in order
> for the proposer to address any issues
> surfaced in the discussion).
> NOTE: I interpret a "no" vote as being one
> in which the charter is rejected, and cannot
> come back for vote without substantive
> rework (i.e. it must start back at step one),
> hence my proposal for a deferral. Otherwise,
> it's possible to see that a charter could
> continually eat up procedural time that has
> zero chance of approval.
> 12. In the case of a deferral, the proposed
> charter is put back on the agenda of the
> next LC teleconference for a vote.
> NOTE: I would suggest only one deferral be
> allowed before a vote must be held for the
> same reason as the previous note.
> 13. In the case of a vote, the LC Chair calls
> for a vote of the members on the proposed
> charter and the outcome is officially recorded.
> Ratification requires a simple majority of the
> full LC.
> I'm sure there's some tweaking we should do to this process, but I
> the concept of the LC Member Shepherd. This is similar in nature to
> IETF process where an Area Director fills the same roll. Also, by
> publicly naming the shepherd we're able to clarify for the community
> they should contact with comments or questions.
> What do folks think about this flow?
> - Trent
> J. Trent Adams
> Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
> Internet Society
> e) adams at isoc.org
> o) 703-439-2149
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
Eve Maler eve.maler @ sun.com
Emerging Technologies Director cell +1 425 345 6756
Sun Microsystems Identity Software www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
More information about the LC