+www-archive +karl +dan +chris +maciej
At 09:59 AM 4/19/2007, (in message
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1210.html)
Murray Maloney wrote:
To the chairs and fellow members:
I think that it is premature to make such a decision.
I would feel more comfortable with a set of design principles
that had been arrived at after a chair-moderated discussion.
I am not content with the content of the existing Proposed
Design Principles or the process that was followed to
develop them. I am convinced that a reasonable set of
Principles or Guidelines can be developed under the guiding
hand of the chairs.
This made me wonder something:
Maciej has written
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0911.html
concerning the proposed principles that
>You can think of them as self-imposed amendments to the charter, so
>that we don't have to pick through the often vague language of the
>charter for justification. Since they are self-imposed, they are also
>less difficult to add or remove in response to feedback. All it takes
>is a decision of the group, not the full re-chartering process which
>is slow and disruptive.
Has a W3C group ever modified its own charter in this way? If so was
it done by majority rule?
If there is a minority which opposes such a modification of a
charter, then it would seem that consensus has not been achieved and
that an official rechartering might be required. Maybe not. I suspect
Karl may know of precedents.
Or perhaps in some meta WG that oversees the specifications of
charters, there may be language that covers exactly this situation
and that a majority may, as it wishes, change things in this way. In
the US, I think one needs a 2/3 majority to change the constitution,
plus some sort of state-by-state referendum.
regards,
Davidhttp://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/
