[name] (Working|Interest) Group Charter

The mission of the [name] (Working|Interest) Group is to [do something cool and specific on the Web].

Join the [name] (Working|Interest) Group.

This proposed charter is available on GitHub. Feel free to raise issues.

Start date [dd monthname yyyy] (date of the "Call for Participation", when the charter is approved)
End date [dd monthname yyyy]
Charter extension See Change History.
Chairs [chair name] (affiliation)
Team Contacts [team contact name] (0.1 FTE)
Meeting Schedule Teleconferences: topic-specific calls may be held or somthing else
Face-to-face: we will meet during the W3C's annual Technical Plenary week; additional face-to-face meetings may be scheduled by consent of the participants, usually no more than 3 per year.

Note: The W3C Process Document requires “The level of confidentiality of the group's proceedings and deliverables”; however, it does not mandate where this appears. Since all W3C Working Groups should be chartered as public, this notice has been moved from the essentials table to the communication section.

Scope

Brief background of landscape, technology, and relationship to the Web, users, developers, implementers, and industry.

Out of Scope

The following features are out of scope, and will not be addressed by this (Working|Interest) group.

Deliverables

Issue: I've removed the milestones table, which is always wildly inaccurate, and included the milestones as projected completion dates in the description template for each deliverable. Up-to-date milestones tables should be maintained on the group page and linked to from this charter.

More detailed milestones and updated publication schedules are available on the group publication status page.

Draft state indicates the state of the deliverable at the time of the charter approval. Expected completion indicates when the deliverable is projected to become a Recommendation, or otherwise reach a stable state.

Normative Specifications

The (Working|Interest) Group will deliver the following W3C normative specifications:

Web [spec name]

This specification defines [concrete description].

Draft state: [No draft | Use Cases and Requirements | Editor's Draft | Member Submission | Adopted from WG/CG Foo | Working Draft]

Expected completion: [Q1–4 yyyy]

Per 5.2.6, for every Recommendation Track deliverable that continues work on a Working Draft (WD) published under any other Charter (including a predecessor group of the same name), for which there is an existing Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation:

Adopted Working Draft: The title, stable URL, and publication date of the Adopted Working Draft which will serve as the basis for work on the deliverable.

Reference Draft: The title, stable URL, and publication date of the most recent Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation which triggered an Exclusion Opportunity per the Patent Process. Exclusion period began; Exclusion period ended. (this charter assistant helps in producing the list. use the proper wgid)

Produced under Working Group Charter: The stable URL of the Working Group charter under which the most recent Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation was published.

Other Deliverables

Other non-normative documents may be created such as:

  • Use case and requirement documents;
  • Test suite and implementation report for the specification;
  • Primer or Best Practice documents to support web developers when designing applications.

Timeline

Put here a timeline view of all deliverables.

  • Month YYYY: First teleconference
  • Month YYYY: First face-to-face meeting
  • Month YYYY: Requirements and Use Cases for FooML
  • Month YYYY: FPWD for FooML
  • Month YYYY: Requirements and Use Cases for BarML
  • Month YYYY: FPWD FooML Primer

Success Criteria

In order to advance to Proposed Recommendation, each specification is expected to have at least two independent implementations of each of feature defined in the specification.

Each specification should contain a section detailing all known security and privacy implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users.

There should be testing plans for each specification, starting from the earliest drafts.

For specifications of technologies that directly impact user experience, such as content technologies, as well as protocols and APIs which impact content: Each specification should contain a section on accessibility that describes the benefits and impacts, including ways specification features can be used to address them, and recommendations for maximising accessibility in implementations.

Consider adopting a healthy testing policy, such as: To promote interoperability, all changes made to specifications should have tests.

Coordination

For all specifications, this (Working|Interest) Group will seek horizontal review for accessibility, internationalization, performance, privacy, and security with the relevant Working and Interest Groups, and with the TAG. Invitation for review must be issued during each major standards-track document transition, including FPWD and at least 3 months before CR, and should be issued when major changes occur in a specification.

Issue: The paragraph above replaces line-item liaisons and dependencies with individual horizontal groups. There's been a suggestion to name and individually link the specific horizontal groups inline, instead of pointing to a page that lists them.

Issue: The requirement for an invitation to review after FPWD and before CR may seem a bit overly restrictive, but it only requires an invitation, not a review, a commitment to review, or even a response from the horizontal group. This compromise offers early notification without introducing a bottleneck.

Additional technical coordination with the following Groups will be made, per the W3C Process Document:

In addition to the above catch-all reference to horizontal review which includes accessibility review, please check with chairs and staff contacts of the Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group to determine if an additional liaison statement with more specific information about concrete review issues is needed in the list below.

W3C Groups

[other name] Working Group
[specific nature of liaison]

Note: Do not list horizontal groups here, only specific WGs relevant to your work.

Note: Do not bury normative text inside the liaison section. Instead, put it in the scope section.

External Organizations

[other name] Working Group
[specific nature of liaison]

Participation

To be successful, this (Working|Interest) Group is expected to have 6 or more active participants for its duration, including representatives from the key implementors of this specification, and active Editors and Test Leads for each specification. The Chairs, specification Editors, and Test Leads are expected to contribute half of a working day per week towards the (Working|Interest) Group. There is no minimum requirement for other Participants.

The group encourages questions, comments and issues on its public mailing lists and document repositories, as described in Communication.

The group also welcomes non-Members to contribute technical submissions for consideration upon their agreement to the terms of the W3C Patent Policy.

Participants in the group are required (by the W3C Process) to follow the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

Communication

Technical discussions for this (Working|Interest) Group are conducted in public: the meeting minutes from teleconference and face-to-face meetings will be archived for public review, and technical discussions and issue tracking will be conducted in a manner that can be both read and written to by the general public. Working Drafts and Editor's Drafts of specifications will be developed on a public repository and may permit direct public contribution requests. The meetings themselves are not open to public participation, however.

Information about the group (including details about deliverables, issues, actions, status, participants, and meetings) will be available from the [name] (Working|Interest) Group home page.

Most [name] (Working|Interest) Group teleconferences will focus on discussion of particular specifications, and will be conducted on an as-needed basis.

This group primarily conducts its technical work pick one, or both, as appropriate: on the public mailing list public-[email-list]@w3.org (archive) or on GitHub issues. The public is invited to review, discuss and contribute to this work.

The group may use a Member-confidential mailing list for administrative purposes and, at the discretion of the Chairs and members of the group, for member-only discussions in special cases when a participant requests such a discussion.

Decision Policy

This group will seek to make decisions through consensus and due process, per the W3C Process Document (section 3.3). Typically, an editor or other participant makes an initial proposal, which is then refined in discussion with members of the group and other reviewers, and consensus emerges with little formal voting being required.

However, if a decision is necessary for timely progress and consensus is not achieved after careful consideration of the range of views presented, the Chairs may call for a group vote and record a decision along with any objections.

To afford asynchronous decisions and organizational deliberation, any resolution (including publication decisions) taken in a face-to-face meeting or teleconference will be considered provisional. A call for consensus (CfC) will be issued for all resolutions (for example, via email and/or web-based survey), with a response period from one week to 10 working days, depending on the chair's evaluation of the group consensus on the issue. If no objections are raised on the mailing list by the end of the response period, the resolution will be considered to have consensus as a resolution of the (Working|Interest) Group.

All decisions made by the group should be considered resolved unless and until new information becomes available or unless reopened at the discretion of the Chairs or the Director.

This charter is written in accordance with the W3C Process Document (Section 3.4, Votes) and includes no voting procedures beyond what the Process Document requires.

[Keep 'Patent Policy' for a Working Group, 'Patent Disclosures' for an Interest Group]

Patent Policy

This Working Group operates under the W3C Patent Policy (Version of 5 February 2004 updated 1 August 2017). To promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented, according to this policy, on a Royalty-Free basis. For more information about disclosure obligations for this group, please see the W3C Patent Policy Implementation.

Patent Disclosures

The Interest Group provides an opportunity to share perspectives on the topic addressed by this charter. W3C reminds Interest Group participants of their obligation to comply with patent disclosure obligations as set out in Section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy. While the Interest Group does not produce Recommendation-track documents, when Interest Group participants review Recommendation-track specifications from Working Groups, the patent disclosure obligations do apply. For more information about disclosure obligations for this group, please see the W3C Patent Policy Implementation.

Licensing

This (Working|Interest) Group will use the [pick a license, one of:] W3C Document license | W3C Software and Document license for all its deliverables.

About this Charter

This charter has been created according to section 5.2 of the Process Document. In the event of a conflict between this document or the provisions of any charter and the W3C Process, the W3C Process shall take precedence.

Charter History

Note:Display this table and update it when appropriate. Requirements for charter extension history are documented in the Charter Guidebook (section 4).

The following table lists details of all changes from the initial charter, per the W3C Process Document (section 5.2.3):

Charter Period Start Date End Date Changes
Initial Charter [dd monthname yyyy] [dd monthname yyyy] none
Charter Extension [dd monthname yyyy] [dd monthname yyyy] none
Rechartered [dd monthname yyyy] [dd monthname yyyy]

[description of change to charter, with link to new deliverable item in charter] Note: use the class new for all new deliverables, for ease of recognition.