simpler Scope language that points to prior deliverables

[tantek]

simpler Scope language that points to prior deliverables, as encouraged by @plehegar and in discussion with @ThisIsMissEm

[dmitrizagidulin]

(chair hat off) 👎 from me on this one, as a reader of a charter, I'd rather see items spelled out explicitly, rather than be pointed elsewhere (especially to a wiki page).
(This is a non-blocking objection, as people can put forth whatever potential charters they'd like. just feedback.)

[bumblefudge]

Other than the git-versus-wiki issue, I feel like the bigger issue is the tension is between pre-enumerating all possible work items and being able to add or subtract work items along the way. I also worry that Chairs will be harder to find if they are implicitly responsible for (and expected to adjusticate PRs to) ALL of these specs on Day 1. Maybe the compromise is to be very explicit about the process, AND to insulate chairs from undue responsibility over that whole list by requiring each work-item in active maintenance have a non-Chair Editor, so Chairs can be more of a conflict-resolver than a PR-triager on them?

We could edit in a proviso like, "Where at least one active Editor and at least one other WG member/affiliation have volunteered and been approved by the CG, active maintenance of the following specs will proceed to new minor versions reviewd by the WG: {the above list}."

[bumblefudge]

A separate issue is whether WG charters for either of these should allow new functionality... the staging process kind of implies that new features need to go through CG gauntlet first before being proposed to [a/the] normative WG. Orthogonal to the "big tent versus multiple tents" debate, there's also the debate of whether staged work can result in new functionality/major versions... i'm happy to recharter that bridge when we come to it, though, since no breaking work is currently chomping at the bit

[tantek]

(chair hat off) 👎 from me on this one, as a reader of a charter, I'd rather see items spelled out explicitly, rather than be pointed elsewhere (especially to a wiki page). (This is a non-blocking objection, as people can put forth whatever potential charters they'd like. just feedback.)

Good feedback. I think your intuition is correct here, that an explicit list of the Recs inline is better than inclusion by reference link to a less formal wiki page. Update PR with inline list.

Also sorted all deliverables alphabetically, fixed names to match what their docs say, and gave then unique ids rather than all id=activity.