W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-native-web-apps@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Call for Consensus: Please review the draft charter

From: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 10:25:36 +0000
Cc: "public-native-web-apps@w3.org" <public-native-web-apps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <739214FA-DC2B-482F-A18A-860C875C7899@gmail.com>
To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
On 2 Dec 2011, at 23:47, Carr, Wayne wrote:

> Nice going!
> 
> Just a couple of comments.  The last one is the only serious one.
> 
> "The CG treats specifications as living documents: specifications are not versioned and they are not dated"
> I'd delete that line.  Maybe it doesn't need to be (though when working with a WG I think it's going to be necessary to know exactly what was the input for a particular stage).  You could just remove the prohibition and see what works.
> 
> "A W3C Working Group takes ownership of it to progress it along the Recommendation track."  
> But, you never give ownership do you?  You give them a version.  They make change requests, you give them another version.  They decide to publish some version as a Candidate Rec.  You don't actually give them "ownership" - you give them copies of versions.  The actual editing of the doc for technical content would be in the CG, not the WG.
> 
> "Every conformance requirement has a tests"
> Typo - "test"
> 
> "A specification is “done” when"
> I'm not sure about that list - I'd drop it.  That's when a version of a spec is gone to REC.  But if there are no "versions" it isn't meaningful so say that means it is done.  It would be done when no one wants to keep working on it.  It seems a spec is done when the CG no longer wants to work on it because they think it is done or decides to drop it. 

That makes more sense.

> 
> "If a decision is necessary for timely progress, but consensus is not achieved after careful consideration of the range of views presented, the Editor of a specification can make a decision on a matter. In extreme cases, the Chair will put a question"
> Instead of "In extreme cases" it would be better to have some process to object to an Editor's decision and call for a vote.  One possibility is someone objects, the chair then makes a decision.  Someone formally objects to that and it goes to a vote.  And it should say that should be avoided whenever possible.  But there needs to be a way to not have ultimate decisions be one or two people.

Sounds good - as a CG the ultimate authority should rest with the community, not the editors.

... but thats a last resort as you say - for most practical decisions lazy consensus will work.

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Filip Maj [mailto:fil@adobe.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 12:45 PM
>> To: public-native-web-apps@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Call for Consensus: Please review the draft charter
>> 
>> Looks good to me!
>> 
>> On 11-11-28 2:00 AM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> Just a reminder to please review the Charter this week:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/community/native-web-apps/charter/
>>> 
>>> I know it's dull and boring administrivia stuff, but it dictates how
>>> the group operates and the scope of what we work on -  so it's
>>> important that you are happy with it.
>>> 
>>> We can't start work on any interesting technical stuff until we have
>>> consensus on the Charter - which is why we want to have it agreed to by
>>> Friday (2nd of Dec).
>>> 
>>> Even if you don't have any critical comments, just shoot us an email
>>> and give us an indication that you agree with it.
>>> 
>>> If you don't agree with something in the charter, please raise it now
>>> rather than later.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Marcos
>>> 
>>> -- Marcos Caceres
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 10:26:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 3 May 2012 18:13:26 GMT