I'd be excited to see a GLEP to outline the purpose of the Comrel team and its role. I'm less happy to codify the policies in the GLEP. I'd argue that most policies should be decided at the team level (not the council level). GLEP48 itself is kind of a mix of "here is what we think the QA team should be doing" and policies "the QA team will fix typos, etc." I'd perhaps advocate for stronger guidance on separating these concerns.

To use an example from our IRC conversation. Rich suggested the Comrel GLEP should contain some kind of wording for privacy expectations. I agree that it should, but I'm not sure it should exactly specify. It might be sufficient to say:

[Proctors]

You should have no privacy expectation for conversations with the Proctors team, assume all conversations are public.

[Comrel]

Conversations with Comrel are confidential, but may become non-confidential under (some circumstances){LINK_TO_POLICY_DOCUMENT}.

Note that I don't intend for this to mean the council cannot have a say in team policies, but I think it should be more reactionary (users report bad policies, council investigates and takes action) and less proactive (council reviews and approves all policies.) I think if the latter was to happen, you'd need some faster way to get the a council to review and approve things. Like in Infra (another team where a charter might be worthwhile) I'm not sure the council approving our policies adds much.

-A