W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > May 2009

RE: Seeking feedback on a new WG to specify APIs for device services

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:01:32 -0700
To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>
CC: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>, "w3c-ac-forum@w3.org" <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "dougt@mozilla.com" <dougt@mozilla.com>, "dbaron@mozilla.com" <dbaron@mozilla.com>, "tlr@w3.org" <tlr@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118CD74164E@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
I'm sorry to hear that webapps is overloaded, because it makes
me wonder whether the liaison approach for insuring that the
security and packaging work are reviewed outside the group
was actually the right choice. 

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-ac-forum-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-ac-forum-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of T.V Raman
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:29 AM
To: plh@w3.org
Cc: raman@google.com; arun@mozilla.com; w3c-ac-forum@w3.org; public-device-apis@w3.org; dougt@mozilla.com; dbaron@mozilla.com; tlr@w3.org
Subject: Re: Seeking feedback on a new WG to specify APIs for device services

Still trying to shed some light in the fog ...

It's been clearly heard by all involved that the webapps group is
overloaded.

It's also clear that if additional work were added there, that
group would need more structure --- perhaps it could be said that
it needs more structure even for its current set of work items.

That said, both your assertions "extra work needs more resources"
and "extra work requires more liaison" 
are equally true of whether new work is done in a separate WG or
in an existing WG, so going forward, I'd request that such
assertions not be  made  in a form that implies that they  apply
to one, and not the other. 

Also, in my experience, the W3C when creating new WGs often
creates new activities as an umbrella for the  new WG (I give you
multimodal, ubiqeb, video) --- and usually states "activities are
"just a management too" --- but in my experience, I usually find
that once approved, some perhaps only slightly related WG  also
shows up in the new activity alongside the WG  that was being
originally discussed.

Of course, the complex tree structure in the org that gets
created then makes liaison activity even more complex.

Philippe Le Hegaret writes:
 > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 10:08 -0700, T.V Raman wrote:
 > > Philippe --
 > > Good points all.
 > > 
 > > Assuming that "if it must be done, then it must be done at the
 > > W3C" with respect to the APIs work, could you help the membership
 > > understand the following with respect to resourcing -- staff
 > > resources, chair resources etc with  for (A) and (B) below: 
 > 
 > I can partially help, ie only from the perspective on the Interaction
 > domain only.
 > 
 > > A) The work is added to WebAPI WG
 > > B) The work is started under a new WG.
 > 
 > I spoke to the team contacts and one of the Chair of the WebApps Group.
 > They all indicated that they wouldn't be able to take on more work with
 > the current resources. So, my rough estimate is that the level of extra
 > resources necessary to take on this new work would be similar whether
 > it's within WebApps or in a separate group. If we do it in WebApps, it
 > would require the group to get more structured (through task forces). 
 > 
 > Philippe
 > 

-- 
Best Regards,
--raman

Title:  Research Scientist      
Email:  raman@google.com
WWW:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
Google: tv+raman 
GTalk:  raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com
PGP:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 21:03:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:13:59 GMT