[template] Regarding public participation

[maxpassion]

In the wai IG chater, it says :
"The group also welcomes non-Members to make technical contributions for ongoing work, provided they agree to the terms of the W3C Patent Policy."

According to W3C process document, it has a process for public participation: https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#igparticipant. Also, according to theW3C Process Document section 3.4.2: "A participant may represent more than one organization in a Working Group or Interest Group. Those organizations must all be members of the group."

It is recommended to refer to the process documentation to ensure that the wording described in the chater is consistent with the process documentation.

[plehegar]

I think, in this context, the "non-Members" should be interpreted as "non-participants". In other works, it's about technical contributions coming from outside of the Interest Group.

I note that this sentence comes from the charter template. And it should probably be clarified if it causes confusion.

[plehegar]

Relates to #598

cc @jyasskin

[iadawn]

I am not clear that this is in the new WAI IG Charter. Happy to be corrected but otherwise excusing myself.

[plehegar]

My bad indeed. it was not in the WAI IG charter. Sorry for the confusion.

[jyasskin]

@maxpassion originally pointed out the text "The public is invited to review, discuss, and contribute to this Interest Group." in WAI's Communication section, which is also in the template. I agree with the previous comments that this is primarily a (minor) problem with the template or, I'd add, maybe the Process.

The template should offer wording for IGs to opt into public participants.

The Process should, perhaps, be more clear about the practical difference between being a participant in a group and being a member of the public "mak[ing] technical contributions for ongoing work" and "review[ing], discuss[ing], and contribut[ing]". I think that members of the public are discouraged from regularly attending meetings, and can't vote, and that's it? But we probably don't need charters to spell that out.

[svgeesus]

But we probably don't need charters to spell that out.

I agree we don't need to repeat the restrictions from the process.

In terms of the charter template, I see two, interrelated, possible points of ambiguity:

1. The term "participant" is used both as "Member of the Group" and "person taking part" (for example, by making public comments). The latter interpretation is strengthened by requiring "participants" to follow the code of conduct.
2. The term "Member" might mean "Member of the Group" or might mean "someone who is an employee of a W3C Member".