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

Re: Updated charter proposal

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 01:56:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia-wSS1WVXrc830-YGFdhgefmTqeLVVxOtEJqXakx_c5nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wonsuk Lee <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com>
Cc: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>, public-sysapps@w3.org
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Wonsuk Lee <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com> wrote:
>> -----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?

The difference between listing a deliverable in Phase 2 and removing
it from the charter is that the working group will be able to work on
Phase 2 deliverables without re-chartering but working on deliverables
that have been removed will require re-chartering.

In practice, there isn't much of a difference between the two since
it's unlikely that we'll be able to actually finish all the
deliverables in the current draft in two years, when we're supposed to
re-charter anyway.  The main difference is that the more deliverables
we list in the charter, the harder the chairs will need to work to
keep the group focused and productive.

Do you have a specific list of deliverables you think we should add to
Phase 2?  I could be convinced to add two or three, but if you want to
balloon it to a laundry list, I'm going to push back.

Adam
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 08:57:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 June 2012 08:57:38 GMT