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

RE: updated draft charter

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 20:37:21 +0000
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, W3C SysApps <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A3FBB0B9E@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
> Is it possible to word the draft so that it is possible to add new work on yet to be named APIs without rechartering? For example, under phase 2:
> "Other APIs that adhere to the Goals and the Scope of the charter and which do not directly conflict with the chartered deliverables of another Working Group."

Lawyers wouldn’t be too happy about that when trying to figure out scope of possible licensing commitments.  That would be anything is in scope that isn’t being done elsewhere.

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 1:15 PM
To: W3C SysApps
Subject: Re: updated draft charter


On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com<mailto:wayne.carr@intel.com>> wrote:
We support adding back those deliverables.  We need to do is decide on what to present to the AC and Director as the limits of the scope and I don't see any reason those specs should be out of scope.

The WG can drop or defer specs if the WG decides not to work on them.  That's much simpler than adding them.  I'm just not seeing why we'd be more capable of deciding that for them.

Is it possible to word the draft so that it is possible to add new work on yet to be named APIs without rechartering? For example, under phase 2:

"Other APIs that adhere to the Goals and the Scope of the charter and which do not directly conflict with the chartered deliverables of another Working Group."


Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:37:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:37:53 GMT