Re: Draft Charter for a Device API and Security WG

Hi Art, all,

On May 12, 2009, at 20:36 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Re the milestones table - a Charter is required to include "expected  
> milestones [1]". I think this is important information to set  
> expectations for Members and the Public (even though we all realize  
> that "stuff happens") and to help Members during their decision  
> process about joining a WG.

Yes, the process requires that expected milestones be specified, but  
it does not require the deliverables table that now seems to be  
present in all charters. My issue with it is that I would like groups  
to be more reliable in the timelines that they announce, if possible  
from the get-go, but the level of precision required from such a table  
can hardly be adhered to. Furthermore, as expressed it gives the  
impression that all deliverables will be worked on in parallel, only  
progressing when all the others progress — which is obviously not what  
is intended.

There are more realistic ways of phrasing milestones that won't  
contribute yet another justification to the common "W3C can never  
deliver on time" complaint.

2009Q4-2010Q1
   A subset of the deliverables that the WG considers to be of higher  
priority or maturity progresses along Recommendation track.

2010Q2-2010Q3
   All deliverables are on Recommendation track.

2011Q2
   All deliverables have reached PR.

It's not detailed, but that's what makes it honest!

> Dom or Philipp - I assume someone from the Team will now take over  
> the editing of this Draft charter.

Is there an ETA on Team pick-up of this?

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/

Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 10:21:18 UTC