[template] Add to charter template hook for CG relationship (split of work, etc.)

[ianbjacobs]

It has been pointed out that there is an emerging pattern of a Working Group having relationship with an ongoing Community Group. The charter template should provide a hook for the authors to set expectations about the relationship.

(This issue comes from a Strategy Team discussion.)

[wseltzer]

As an example, a current draft says in the Scope section: "Note that the majority of the input to this Working Group will come directly from the GPU for the Web Community Group. No major development will happen in the Working Group itself. Instead, the Community Group will be driving the technical work." which I don't think is quite right.

Think also about where in the doc the line should go. I'd think not in Scope but liaisons.

[wseltzer]

Other examples:

Immersive Web WG In addition, the Immersive Web Working Group plans to partner closely with the IWCG to incubate new features - in particular, incubation of features that are out of current scope for the working group will happen in the Community Group, and then be followed by future WG rechartering to include them in scope.

or WebAssembly WG
"WebAssembly Community Group: Coordination on seed specification to begin the standards process."

[wseltzer]

WebPerf says
Web Platform Incubator Community Group
This group provides a lightweight venue for proposing, incubating and discussing new web platform features. The Web Performance Working group will incubate and review new proposals that are within scope of our charter within the WICG. Once such WICG-incubated proposal is implemented and available in at least one major browser, and has support from one more, it may be adopted by the Web Performance Working group.

[wseltzer]

Let's write a pattern book, rather than choosing a size. Can we write up text describing CG-WG relationships that we've seen work, and invite groups to choose among alternatives?

[svgeesus]

Discussed on 8 Dec 2020 strat call, and four general patterns were described. I will make a PR to add those as choices, while allowing others if those don't fit.

[ianbjacobs]

@svgeesus, you mentioned creating a pull request for CG/WG relationships (in the charter template). Can you indicate whether that's still something you would like to do, or would like to collaborate on?

[svgeesus]

Thanks for the reminder. Yes, still interested. Minutes (team-only)

[csarven]

Nudge.

The Solid CG ran into this consideration for the Solid WG charter. Here is the consensus that was reached by the Solid CG:

The proposed Solid WG charter uses the following under "Adding new Recommendation-track deliverables":

The Working Group will not adopt new proposals until they have matured through the W3C Solid Community Group or another similar incubation phase.

Under "Coordination" - W3C groups:

Solid Community Group
To maintain a separation of goals and transfer of incubated work items.

[plehegar]

The need to have a separate section of potential REC-track documents that are still being incubated, e.g. section 2.2 of webapps, resurfaced again for the Privacy WG charter.

[csarven]

Noting here that the most recent text in the Solid WG charter revised to also make an explicit reference to W3C Recommendation Track Readiness Best Practices, where several WG charters are following and reusing the example text under "Has the proposed spec been incubated to reasonable maturity?"

The Working Group will adopt proposals that fulfill the requirements of W3C Recommendation Track Readiness. In particular, the Working Group will only adopt proposals it deems sufficiently mature. Proposals can be made to the Working Group through the W3C Solid Community Group or another similar incubation phase.

[svgeesus]

The need to have a separate section of potential REC-track documents that are still being incubated, e.g. section 2.2 of webapps, resurfaced again for the Privacy WG charter.

We now have a Tentative Deliverables section in the charter template. The text is

Depending on the incubation progress, interest from multiple implementers, and the consensus of the Group participants, the Working Group may adopt the following documents as Rec-track specifications:

[svgeesus]

@ianbjacobs does that satisfy your original comment or is there more to do?

@csarven I agree that adding a link to W3C Recommendation Track Readiness in that section would be beneficial.

[ianbjacobs]

@svgeesus, thank you for the ping. My thoughts:

• This hook is useful.
• I had more in mind than tentative deliverables when I said "set expectations about the relationship" between the WG and the CG. However, having recently worked on a charter for an IG with a relationship to a CG, I realized that the template already provides a mechanism for describing relationships: the Coordination section.

So, I don't need additional hooks and this new one is helpful. Thanks!