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

RE: Updated charter proposal

From: Wonsuk Lee <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:04:45 +0900
To: 'Adam Barth' <w3c@adambarth.com>
Cc: 'JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA' <jmcf@tid.es>, public-sysapps@w3.org
Message-id: <02a301cd42e1$1ddbeec0$5993cc40$%lee@samsung.com>
Hi. Adam.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 11:23 AM
> To: Wonsuk Lee
> Cc: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA; public-sysapps@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Updated charter proposal
> 
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Wonsuk Lee <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com>
> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA [mailto:jmcf@tid.es]
> >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 11:13 PM
> >> To: Adam Barth; public-sysapps@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Updated charter proposal
> >>
> >> El 03/06/12 11:19, "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com> escribió:
> >> >Based on the discussion on this list, I've put together an updated
> >> >proposal for a charter:
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> It seems DAP wanted to follow the Intents approach in order to deal
> better
> >> with the security issues in a browser context. I think we do need APIs
> for
> >> them in a "System-Level" Context.
> >
> > I fully agree with Jose's opinion for above issues. We need to keep them
> in
> > the charter.
> 
> I agree that these deliverables fall under the general SysApps scope,
> but we already have enough deliverables in the charter to keep us busy
> for two years.  Rather than bite off more than we can chew, let's plan
> to add them after we've been successful with the current group of
> deliverables and are ready to re-charter.

I understand. but I am confused because some items are classified to Phase 2
and some items are removed from charter. I think meaning of removing is
quite different with classification of Phase 2. I think it would be better
to classify these as the phase 2 items instead of removing. What do you
think?

Best regards,
Wonsuk.

> Adam
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 06:04:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 June 2012 06:04:47 GMT