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

Re: Draft Charter for a Device API and Security WG

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 08:56:33 +0200
To: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1242284193.4633.70.camel@altocumulustier>
Le mercredi 13 mai 2009 à 12:31 -0400, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
> > I haven't removed/modified the milestones table yet; Robin's latest
> > proposal is appealing to me, though. I'll try and see if that would  
> > fly
> > wrt process requirements.
> 
> Sigh. It appears you already removed it (and I thought there was a  
> high value on consensus here :-)).

Surely there is consensus until someone expresses dissent :) You had
expressed dissent about not having any milestones defined, not about
defining them in a different format.

> 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.

I've replaced it with: "Deliverables with assigned editors progress
along Recommendation track" - does that work for you?

>  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.

(in theory, the Chairs are responsible for nominating editors IIRC, so a
Chair could still block the work by refusing any editors; in practice, I
don't think this is a big risk)

Dom
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 06:56:58 GMT

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