less simple Scope language that gates active maintenance on editor-champions (in big-tent WG charter)

[bumblefudge]

See discussion on #72 , to which this is an either/or alternative.

[tantek]

I think it's a bad idea (and unprecedented?) for a WG to process to be dependent on something in the CG. Take input from yes, but this kind of hard dependency by a formal working group on an informal community group is a bit of an odd inversion.

[tantek]

Thanks @bumblefudge. I can live with this addition, so am labeling reviewing as "approve" to not block it.
I like the idea of identifying an editor in order to maintain a spec.

I'm uncertain about trying to identify a "member unaffiliated" as I'm not sure of the intent of that? Also if that's not supposed to mean "W3C Member" than it may need clarification.

Also "volunteer" sounds ambiguous, like volunteer for what role or responsibility? Or is the intention here looking for 2+ (or exactly 2?) volunteer editors per spec?
if so, 2+ seems like a mismatch for a "maintenance" revision which should be doable by one active Editor.

Lastly, I think rather than identifying another volunteer, a more important requirement would be that any active Editor is not also a Chair.

Bottom line, I would support these additional fixes either here on this PR or a subsequent PR. Appreciate your attention to this.

[bumblefudge]

I'm uncertain about trying to identify a "member unaffiliated" as I'm not sure of the intent of that? Also if that's not supposed to mean "W3C Member" than it may need clarification.

#79 should cover that, HOPEFULLY without merge conflicts but no promises, I am terrible at git-editing 🙈

Also "volunteer" sounds ambiguous, like volunteer for what role or responsibility? Or is the intention here looking for 2+ (or exactly 2?) volunteer editors per spec? if so, 2+ seems like a mismatch for a "maintenance" revision which should be doable by one active Editor.

Good thinking-- I addressed this in the most recent commit. I agree about maintenance, good thing we dropped that in parallel PRs; new things graduating out of staging process and maintenance should be able to co-exist and share bandwidth/workflow planning between them.

Lastly, I think rather than identifying another volunteer, a more important requirement would be that any active Editor is not also a Chair.

Ditto

Bottom line, I would support these additional fixes either here on this PR or a subsequent PR. Appreciate your attention to this.

So as not to stale your approval, I'll limit myself only to the above on this PR. In a separate commit, I'll also mirror all of the above on the other proposed WG charters in case they get adopted instead, as we're down the wire!