W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2012

Updated charter proposal

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 02:19:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia9q9PwFKG_tOnexZEsQ+v_noAbkwAv8gbwbeba2ezgCZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-sysapps@w3.org
Hi SysApps,

Based on the discussion on this list, I've put together an updated
proposal for a charter:


In addition to fixing a couple typos, I've removed the term "browse-by
web" as discussed in
 I've also re-worked the deliverables section a bit.  I've split the
deliverables into two phases, as discussed in
 I've also added the following paragraph to explain the distinction
between these phases:

The working group's deliverables are divided into two phases.
Initially, the working group will focus on deliverables in the first
phase in order to establish patterns and conventions that will be used
for the remaining deliverables. The working group does not necessarily
need to complete work on the phase 1 deliverables before working on
deliverables in phase 2. However, the working group should make some
substantial progress on some of the phase 1 deliverables before
working on phase 2 deliverables.

I was able to accomodate most of the requests folks sent to the list.
The notable exceptions are Sensors, Calendar, and Contacts, all of
which are deliverables for the Device APIs working group.  I'd like to
avoid (or at least delay) a "territory" fight with that working group.
 The charter has 16 deliverables, which is more than enough to keep us
busy for two years.  I've also left NFC off the list because it had
already been removed from the W3C version of the charter and seems
likely to be taken up by the Near Field Communications working group.

Despite strong interest on the mailing list, I've placed the Media
Storage API in phase 2.  I think everyone agrees that Media Storage is
an important API, but the issue is that there is strong disagreement
about whether the API should depend on
<http://www.w3.org/TR/file-system-api/>.  This working group will be
the appropriate venue to have that discussion, but starting off with
that discussion before we've all developed working relationships runs
the risk of derailing the working group.  For that reason, I'd like to
gather some momentum on some of the less contentious specs before
opening that can of worms.

Please let me know if you have any feedback.

Many thanks,
Received on Sunday, 3 June 2012 09:20:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:09 UTC