Better define major/minor charter changes

[frivoal]

Refine the definition/usage of the concept of minor changes to a charter.

See PSIG discussion at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-psig/2025AprJun/0005.html

---

Preview | Diff

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Better define major/minor charter changes (from PSIG), and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Adopt #1042 with switch to "any change in scope"

The full IRC log of that discussion

Subtopic: Better define major/minor charter changes (from PSIG)
github: https://github.com//pull/1042
florian: This came to PSIG's attention because we reshuffled the text in this area. The existing text is not new, but it moved and was tweaked a bit so that got their attention
plh: we don't make minor changes to scope. At best, a minor change in the deliverable section is to fix a broken link.
florian: the focus from their point of view is making sure that at least changes in scope, changes that increase scope especially, including some type of adding deliverables would go through review due to patent implications
plh: In practice, the only changes we make that way are to change Team Contacts, Chairs, or end date of charter
... in the PR, when we change the chair, some people would consider that substantive
... and would not be incorrect; however the Process doesn't say we need to have an AC review because substantive.
... Chairs are selected by the Team.
... We put that info in the charter, but if a chair needs to change for whatever reason, we don't want that to go through AC Review
... and not necessarily consensus of the WG (though should consult with the group)
cwilso: Not sure that's true in practice. How do you determine what the group wants if you don't ask?
plh: Change seems to say that it require consensus of the group.
florian: First, changing chairs was previously and is still a minor change.
... PSIG clarifies other changes.
... Consensus is a should requirement, not must.
... Also I don't think PSIG would mind if you put chair along with Team Contact as not needing group consensus.
plh: Changing chairs would be seen as substantive
Depends on the outgoing and incoming chairs...
fantasai: substantive != minor, a change could be both substantive and minor.
... In any case, the Team always has the option to go through AC Review. The minor changes process is only an option.
plh: We never did an AC Review for changing the chair
florian: Old Process, Team is allowed but not required to AC Review for change of chair.
... Proposed prose recommends, but does not require, consensus of group for changes.
cwilso: If necessary people can formally object to the Team decision.
... It's a little weird to change during the review period
florian: Wrt change or expansion of scope... [quotes text]
... We don't say explicitly that reducing scope is a minor change, but we do say that increasing scope is not.
... From PSIG's point of view, from patent point of view, no risk to portfolio to reduce scope.
... They don't take a position on whether decreasing needs review.
plh: If it was me, any change to scope is major change. We have never done that.
florian: So aligned with Chris that any change should be not minor.
plh: Right. We shouldn't change scope of charter at all.
florian: I can live with that
fantasai: I suspect PSIG would be fine
florian: what's the process?
fantasai: We gave AB a heads up on this topic. We should make any changes we think need to happen. And then go back to PSIG/AB with the result.
florian: OK, so let's switch to any change in scope
RESOLVED: Adopt #1042 with switch to "any change in scope"