Clarified in this edit.
Reading the charter it is unclear whether documentation is within scope or out of scope in this new charter. "Documentation" is admittedly vague. Let's say (improvements welcome):
I think doc standards in the code would be in scope, though code docs themselves probably not. Architecture docs regarding decisions taken by the committee should be - in fact, it would be nice if every RFC that proposes some architectural change would be combined with the document describing the resulting design, which can be used both by implementers and other developers.
I think guidelines and policies for documentation in the source code, and mid-level documentation (hopefully) maintained in the code repo, are definitely in scope. Installation instructions and such probably too. Documentation for user-facing features - not so much.
Community processes, and documentation of such - not authority, though the committee will probably have opinions and suggestions.
I agree with the others here. In scope seems primarily documentation as written and intended for developers and site-admins that contribute to, or use, the software as customer of MediaWiki. For those it would be appropiate for ArchCom to consider introducing new standards or guidelines.
Documentation for other purposes or about other topics, including those in the form of wiki pages, not in our scope.
However, any technical requirements for such documentation, would be in-scope again. For example if a new domain name, service, or software feature is desired. We should review the proposed implementation there, purely from a technical perspective.
