add the funnel texts to public

0.Exploration.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+[Investigation >](1.Investigation.md)
+
+---
+
+# Exploration
+
+This phase is the most open-ended. Brainstorming, ideas, news
+headlines, contacts, etc. can go here to see if they spark ideas from
+others or combine with work in progress.  *Anyone* in the community can add to this
+column by opening a new issue in the repository.
+Anyone on the W3C team can volunteer to lead (take on or curate) ideas that have
+been added.
+
+When the leader determines that the idea merits more than a few hours of consideration, 
+and is willing to lead that investigation, he/she should move it to the Investigation
+column.
+
+Unassigned items go to the bottom of the column. The Strategy Team will review the 
+column periodically, at which point unassigned items can: get an assignee, conclude 
+strategy work with "no further action", or stay put. Items that stay unassigned for
+several review periods will move to a "parking lot."
+

1.Investigation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+[< Exploration](0.Exploration.md) | [Incubation >](2.Incubation.md)
+
+---
+
+# Investigation
+
+Once something has a bit of meat and a leader, it can become an entry
+in the Investigation column. Issues there should indicate, at a
+minimum: brief abstract, what it would do if successful, who would be
+interested/supportive (types of people&orgs, not individuals), and
+next steps. By moving something here, a Specialist indicates intent to
+lead the investigation and report back to the team. (He/she is assigned to the
+relevant entry as an “owner” in the strategy funnel.)
+
+Further steps in this process could include 1:1 meetings, discussion
+at industry conferences, blogging/public discussion, workshops.
+
+Onward directions include: recommend to incubate (with or without team
+involvement), to evaluate for chartering because there is already
+sufficient incubation, recommend to liaise elsewhere, write up and put
+on hold, or actively recommend against work.

2.Incubation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+[< Investigation](1.Investigation.md) | [Evaluation >](3.Evaluation.md)
+
+---
+
+# Incubation
+
+Incubation can happen in CGs, BGs, IGs, WGs, and outside of W3C.  
+
+We should track work in this phase, identify how much team support and
+guidance to give it, and watch for products that can be useful in
+rec-track work, including reports, prototypes, and draft specs.
+
+Not all useful-to-the-Web work is specs or happens at W3C, so if
+incubation produces work of different forms that we can help the Web
+by facilitating elsewhere, let's figure out how to encourage that too.

3.Evaluation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+[< Incubation](2.Incubation.md) | [Chartering >](4.Chartering.md)
+
+---
+
+
+# Evaluation
+
+A core part of our *Strategic* work is the evaluation of how proposed
+work serves the Web. In the "Evaluation" phase at the end of the funnel,
+we make the case whether work is ready to proceed to Chartering. At that
+point, we need to identify:
+
+* Will this work help to lead the web to its full potential?
+
+* Is the work Rec-track ready?
+  * [Rec Track Readiness](https://www.w3.org/Guide/standards-track/) (AB)
+  * [Intent to Migrate](https://wicg.github.io/admin/intent-to-migrate.html) (WICG)
+
+* Do we have the ecosystem of participants needed to make the work successful?
+  * users, developers, implementers; industry sectors
+  * from that we can dig into
+    * who specifically is involved? interested, opposed?
+    * what tools and frameworks do they use?
+
+digging deeper:
+
+Will it add value?
+* something good for web users. what are the alternatives?
+* have "horizontal" (a11y, i18n, security, privacy) issues been considered and identified?
+* what's its importance/opportunity cost?
+
+Will we be able to make it succeed?
+* right participants interested. What does the ecosystem look like?
+* implementation likely
+* manageably sized problem
+* achievable timeline
+* minimum viable product
+
+Special considerations?
+* risk factors
+* incentives
+* openness, decentralization
+
+Once we're past the transitional phase, We should plan evaluation
+reports that compile our review of the area and recommend for/against
+chartering work at this time. This report will help us to tell the story
+to our members and prospects when we move to chartering and beyond.

4.Chartering.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+[< Evaluation](3.Evaluation.md)
+
+---
+
+# Chartering
+
+The Process [https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#CharterReview](5.2.3) requires us to seek AC review of at least four weeks
+for "every new or substantively modified Working Group or Interest Group
+charter."
+
+Chartering: We get to this stage when we have a pretty solid idea that
+there's standardization work to be done in an area, what that work looks
+like, and likely support from the stakeholders necessary for it to
+succeed. (We will have developed that at the previous, Evaluation stage.)
+
+One member of the Strategy team will act as Charter Shepherd. The
+Shepherd manages the development of the charter draft, including
+securing horizontal reviews of the charter, identifying and speaking
+with proposed chairs, and suggesting skills and time needed for team
+contact. He/she should also have a sense of the ecosystem support and probe
+for likely objections based on the advance notice. Our goal threshold is
+still to have 5% of the membership support a charter proposal, with no
+un-addressed objections, before we begin work. When we have a charter in
+this shape, we'll bring it to W3M for review.
+
+The Shepherd may solicit the help of another team member, for example 
+to contribute the editorial work; this is typically case when the Shepherd 
+is not expected to be the staff contact (and
+the proposed staff contact should then be involved in the chartering from the start). 
+In other cases the Shepherd plays both the strategy and the editorial 
+roles for the new charter, e.g., when the he/she is expected to be the 
+proposed staff contact as well.
+
+Upon W3M approval (after responding to any questions raised there), the
+charter Shepherd works with Comm to post the proposed charter and
+prepare the AC notice and review form (WBS). You should monitor the WBS
+as the review period progresses to make sure that expected supporters
+are reviewing and to respond early to suggestions and Formal Objections.
+
+When the review period closes, we'll prepare a disposition of comments
+and determine whether we need to make any changes to address suggestions
+or Objections. We'll bring this disposition to W3M, including a
+recommendation whether any updates require a formal re-review or an
+email to those who participated in the review. When W3M approves, the
+Shepherd works with Comm to announce the chartering and then we hand the
+package to Project Management.