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

Re: Draft Charter for a Device API and Security WG

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 19:08:57 +0200
Cc: ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EF66C2AE-AF5B-49D4-8C41-33B5A24A1766@berjon.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
On May 13, 2009, at 18:31 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Regarding:
>
> [[
> 2009Q4-2010Q1
>    A subset of the deliverables that the WG considers to be of  
> higher priority or maturity progresses along Recommendation track.
> ]]
>
> Text like this would permit a Chair to block a spec that a minority  
> of the WG wants to progress.

That was certainly not the intent! If a minority of a WG wants to push  
something along Rec track, the Chair can only comply  the only case I  
see in which there may be an issue is if publication involves strong  
dissent (i.e. not just a minority wanting, but a strong plurality  
against). If a minority wants something with little or no opposition,  
we have consensus  so the spec is published.

But I'm happy with other wordings  the point was merely to make the  
milestones honest.

> As such, I object to it since a requirement of the Charter is that  
> all specs must be given equal priority i.e. any spec may progress if  
> a Member is willing to provide the necessary resources.

I'm fine with that, I just don't want to say that all specs *will*  
*necessarily* make equal progress  which is what the previous  
milestones seemed to indicate.

> I also don't understand the use of "maturity" in this context. The  
> Charter must assure the Chair treats all inputs fairly and equally  
> (regardless of their "maturity" or provenance).

I'm happy to drop it, the idea was just to explain that some specs may  
get to FPWD first because the WG got solid input, whereas other might  
take a little longer to be fleshed out. "Publish early and often" is  
of course nice, but must be balanced against the advantage of having a  
fair amount of stuff in the spec for the first exclusion period.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:09:44 GMT

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