W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > March 2012

RE: Charter amendment proposal

From: Gholkar, Vidhya, VF-Group <Vidhya.Gholkar@vodafone.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 20:03:43 +0000
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, Core Mobile Web Platform CG <public-coremob@w3.org>
CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Message-ID: <59D61334DEE3624CBCE18016720E05340179CE@VOEXM02W.internal.vodafone.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Tobie Langel [mailto:tobie@fb.com] 
Sent: 06 March 2012 11:21
To: Gholkar, Vidhya, VF-Group; Core Mobile Web Platform CG
Cc: Robin Berjon
Subject: Re: Charter amendment proposal

Thanks for your comments, Vidhya.

On 3/6/12 7:04 PM, "Gholkar, Vidhya, VF-Group"
<Vidhya.Gholkar@vodafone.com> wrote:

>a) remove "Otherwise"  [reads like a "Else" statement and it is not 
>clear what the "Else" is referring to] and replace with "Where tests 
>don't exist ..."  (or something similar).

>>There's a bunch of reasons why the CG might think existing tests aren't appropriate (e.g.: can't be automated, to long to run, etc.). I'd like to avoid >>having to list everyone one of them in the charter.

vidhya:  Your reply makes me understand the intent now. The "otherwise" is  a stand-in for " where not appropriate".  I thought all that is being said  is that in some cases there aren't tests and the CG will endeavour to produce them. In fact, what is being said is a little bit more subtle: in some cases tests exist, but they are not good enough or "appropriate" for a number of reasons.  For these we need to produce better ones. I get it.

>b) There is a confusing statement about "contributing back to the 
>original group". Q: Shouldn't the charter just focus on what this group 
>does and not place (implied) obligations on what contributors do 
>outside the group?

Maybe this needs yet more clarifications. Tests need to be contributed to W3C (there's no existing concept of per group contribution, nor would that be desirable, imho). Their best home happens to be the group in which their relevant spec is (or was) developed. Happy to consider an alternate phrasing that captures our intent better.

vidhya: OK . May be just drop the "by their original author"?  (or  make it "original/contributing authors") ... I am easy ... whatever makes sense to move things along speedily ....



vidhya: thanks!
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 20:04:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:44 UTC