Skip to content

Conversation

@tidoust
Copy link
Member

@tidoust tidoust commented Jan 16, 2026

The need for current group participants to re-join a group once a new charter is approved is triggered by a change of scope. The guidebook also mentioned the list of deliverables, but we do not ask participants to re-join when new new in-scope deliverables are added.

The need for current group participants to re-join a group once a new charter
is approved is triggered by a change of scope. The guidebook also mentioned the
list of deliverables, but we do not ask participants to re-join when new
new in-scope deliverables are added.
@tidoust tidoust requested a review from plehegar January 16, 2026 10:33
Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

1. 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.
2. The list of significant changes to a revised charter (per ["Advisory Committee Review of a Working Group or Interest Group Charter"](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#CharterReview) 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](https://services.w3.org/htmldiff)).
3. In case of renewal of an existing charter, whether the group scope has changed. I.e., 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.
3. In case of renewal of an existing charter, whether the current group participants would need to re-join the group once the revised charter is approved. Group participants would need to re-join if the scope changes.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
3. In case of renewal of an existing charter, whether the current group participants would need to re-join the group once the revised charter is approved. Group participants would need to re-join if the scope changes.
3. When renewing an existing charter, whether the current group participants would need to re-join the group once the revised charter is approved. Group participants would need to re-join if the scope changes.

- If applicable, the rationale for approving the group despite objections, or despite the fact it did not receive reviews [from at least 5% of the Membership](#review_threshold).
In case a charter has new deliverables in-scope, it is useful to include a notice that a 45-day grace period is granted to existing participants of the group under the previous charter, who will then need to re-join the group.
In case the scope of a charter changed, it is useful to include a notice that a 45-day grace period is granted to existing participants of the group under the previous charter, who will then need to re-join the group.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
In case the scope of a charter changed, it is useful to include a notice that a 45-day grace period is granted to existing participants of the group under the previous charter, who will then need to re-join the group.
When the scope of a charter changes, it is useful to include a notice that a 45-day grace period is granted to existing participants of the group under the previous charter, who will then need to re-join the group.

In case the scope of a charter changed, it is useful to include a notice that a 45-day grace period is granted to existing participants of the group under the previous charter, who will then need to re-join the group.
In case the new charter doesn't have new deliverables involving new patent commitment, it is useful to clarify that existing participants under the previous charter will not be required to leave/re-join the group.
In case the scope of a charter did not change, it is useful to clarify that existing participants under the previous charter will not be required to leave/re-join the group.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
In case the scope of a charter did not change, it is useful to clarify that existing participants under the previous charter will not be required to leave/re-join the group.
When the scope of a charter does not change, it is useful to clarify that existing participants under the previous charter will not be required to leave/re-join the group.

Staff Contacts should look at [how to setup a new group](../tools/new-group.md) once the call for participation is out.

**Note:** When we recharter a work group and the charter scope has changed, we enter the CFP into the Group DB, which triggers messages to the group participants that they must rejoin. If the new charter doesn't have new deliverables involving new patent commitment, do not register the new CFP.
**Note:** When we recharter a work group and the charter scope has changed, we enter the CFP into the Group DB, which triggers messages to the group participants that they must re-join. If the scope did not change in the new charter, do not register the new CFP.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
**Note:** When we recharter a work group and the charter scope has changed, we enter the CFP into the Group DB, which triggers messages to the group participants that they must re-join. If the scope did not change in the new charter, do not register the new CFP.
**Note:** When we recharter a work group and the charter scope has changed, we enter the CFP into the Group DB, which triggers messages to the group participants that they must re-join. If the scope did not change in the new charter, we do not register a new CFP.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants