Turn the WG into a maintenance WG

[pchampin]

---

Preview | Diff

[iherman]

• Having been on the receiving end of such comments no later than yesterday: you should sync the charter text with the latest charter template, otherwise this will be rejected. The new charter draft includes a bunch of small changes (e.g., all pointers to the process document are now different, there is a reference to the TAG principles, etc...), which is a pain in the back side to sync with, but there you go (the comment I got is that it is better to start with the template rather than the old charter text...)
• In particular, the charter should now begin with a separate section on "motivation and background", which should probably absorb most of what is in the scope section now. The scope is supposed to be very short now, some sort of legal text...
• I am not sure that the mission statement should stay as is. The mission of the WG is to "maintain" and not to "define".
• Similarly, the scope should say that we maintain and not do anything more new development. This is not the way it reads right now...
• It is probably a good idea to add a note that the WG is authorized to do class 4 changes on the spec.

[msporny]

Supportive of the charter, with @iherman's changes applied.

[dlongley]

+1 with @iherman's changes applied.

[philarcher]

LGTM, thanks PA

[pchampin]

All of @iherman's suggestions should now be addressed.

[iherman]

Left one comment; approving once that is taken in consideration (it is just an editorial change).

[gkellogg]

I think the RDF-DEV CG should be replaced with the RDF-star WG for coordination. I wouldn’t be adverse to listing both, but the RDF-DEV CG isn’t working on RDF-star at this point.

[philarcher]

I've committed a couple of changes to the scope section to refer to the published explainer doc (https://www.w3.org/TR/rch-explainer/) rather than the local copy which seems broken anyway. Ignore that commit if you disagree.

[yamdan]

Thank you @pchampin. I approve it with a few editorial suggestions similar to those made by @philarcher.

[pchampin]

@peacekeeper I need you to approve the PR before I can merge it

[TallTed]

Minor, editorial

[pchampin]

I still am unable to merge. Probably because @TallTed requested changes, which I just accepted. @TallTed can you now approve the PR?