Move details of how the Team evaluates charters to the guide

[frivoal]

This is similar to how we move the Team's evaluation criteria for Member submissions to the Guide.

---

Preview | Diff

[frivoal]

This is the minimalist version of this PR. We could choose to keep a little more in the Process (for instance, for Member submissions we kept the IPR clauses), but this is what it looks like if we move it all to the guide. Of course, we actually need to populate that guide article.

[fantasai]

I think we should follow the model we did for Member Submissions, which is to keep the high-level ideas of what the Team should be evaluating in the Process (scope, quality, mission-alignment, etc.), and leave the details to the Guide.

[tantek]

I liked the prior language but I'm also ok with deferring to referring to the Guide for this.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Move details of how the Team evaluates charters to the Guide, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Merge PR and add charter assesment criteria to Guidebook

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Move details of how the Team evaluates charters to the Guide
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/1000
<fantasai> florian: We discussed previously
<fantasai> ... Process doesn't need to say too much, because would be in Guide
<Ian> q+
<Ian> scribe nick: Ian
<Ian> scribenick: Ian
<Ian> fantasai: Ian provided a list of considerations beyond the two in the text.
<Ian> ...but 4 fall under scope and mission.
<Ian> ...various ones are covered by mission and mature.
<Ian> ...I don't love having assessment elsewhere which might be arbitrary
<Ian> ...it would be nice to create a category like "otherwise impractical"
<florian> q+
<Ian> fantasai: I will not object to this (given time constraint)
<plh> ack ian
<fantasai> Ian: There's value in being more explicit because it becomes more predictable
<fantasai> ... For example, some of the things you said might be understood to be related to maturity, might not jump out at somebody
<fantasai> ... So might be surprised if advised if they need to get more community support
<fantasai> ... So value in being explicit, but not in Process
<fantasai> ... So pushed off a lot to staff to get things done
<fantasai> ... Don't expect there to be any absurd requests
<TallTed> age doesn't automatically equate to maturity...
<fantasai> florian: "otherwise doesn't meet the criteria" is open-ended, but they can object to things in Guide
<fantasai> ... so I'm ok with this
<fantasai> plh: Seems we need a PR for Guidebook
<fantasai> Ian: We have a whole revision to do, and I have a draft of that, but haven't updated lately
<fantasai> plh: Yes, but here we're linking to Guide so we should be clear
<fantasai> ... if we do merge this, we need a PR against Guidebook
<fantasai> plh: Any objections to merge?
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR and add charter assesment criteria to Guidebook