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

RE: poll results

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:47:55 +0000
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
CC: W3C SysApps <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A3FBC549D@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
More important than what you are putting in each phase, what are you suggesting to throw out of the WG altogether by leaving it out of the charter?  

That is the decision that is very hard to amend later.

  Wayne

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com]
>Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:39 AM
>To: Dave Raggett
>Cc: W3C SysApps
>Subject: Re: poll results
>
>On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:
>> Leaping the gun slightly, but here is a summary of the results of the
>> poll on the proposed deliverables
>>
>>  http://www.w3.org/2012/06/sysapps-poll-results.html

>>
>> No conclusions as yet, but feel free to draw your own.
>
>I've crunched the numbers from the poll, and here are some thoughts.
>Below, I've tried to (roughly!) rank the deliverables based on the results of the
>poll.
>
>A) There seems to be a group of deliverables that have strong interest from the
>folks who responded to the poll.  These deliverables have more than two
>organizations interested in implementing them and multiple folks willing to
>contribute editorial resources.
>
>B) There seems to be another groups of deliverables that have somewhat weaker
>interest from the respondents.  These deliverables have only two organizations
>interested in implementing them and typically have only one organization willing
>to contribute editorial resources.
>
>C) The next group lacks editorial resources.  We could shake the trees and try to
>find some editorial resources, but we've got pretty of work on our plate already.
>These seem like good candidates to defer to later.
>
>D) The last group has fewer than two implementors.  Without multiple
>implementors, we're going to have trouble moving these deliverables through the
>W3C process.
>
>Based on this information, I've made a proposal for what should be in our
>charter.  I've included all the deliverables from group (A), and I've also included
>the Secure Elements API and the Idle API from group (B).  These are the two
>deliverables in group (B) that have multiple organizations willing to contribute
>editorial resources.
>
>As always, I welcome your feedback, but I would like to come to closure on a
>charter in the near term so that we can begin the technical work.
>
>Many thanks,
>Adam
>
>
>Note: The column order is the same as on
><http://www.w3.org/2012/06/sysapps-poll-results.html>.
>
>Poll Results
>============
>
>Strong Interest
>---------------
>
>Media Storage API           5   2   5   3   5
>Bluetooth API               3   2   5   3   3
>Alarm API                   3   3   5   3   3
>Contacts API                4   3   4   2   5
>Messaging API               3   3   3   3   4
>Telephony API               4   3   3   2   4
>Raw Sockets API             2   2   3   2   2
>Device Capabilities API     2   2   3   2   4
>Calendar API                3   2   3   2   3
>Browser API                 2   1   3   1   2
>
>Only Two Implementors
>---------------------
>
>Secure Elements API         1   4   2   3   2
>Idle API                    1   2   2   1   2
>DNS Resolution API          1   1   2   2   1
>Network Interface API       2   1   2   2   2
>Resource Lock API           1   1   2   1   2
>Serial API                  1   1   2   2   1
>Application API             1   1   2   2   2
>Accounts API                1   1   2   2   2
>Web Intent Registration API 1   1   2   1   4
>
>No Editorial Resources
>----------------------
>
>File System API             3       3   2   4
>System Settings API         2       2   1   2
>Keyboard/IME API            1       2   1   1
>Background Services API     1       2   1   3
>
>Less Than Two Implementors
>--------------------------
>
>Power Management API            1   1   1   2
>Spellcheck API              3   1   1
>Sensors API                 1       1   2
>USB API
>
>
>Proposal
>========
>
>Phase 1
>-------
>
>Runtime Model               (not polled)
>Security Model              (not polled)
>Alarm API                   3   3   5   3   3
>Contacts API                4   3   4   2   5
>Messaging API               3   3   3   3   4
>Telephony API               4   3   3   2   4
>Raw Sockets API             2   2   3   2   2
>
>Phase 2
>-------
>
>Bluetooth API               3   2   5   3   3
>Media Storage API           5   2   5   3   5
>Device Capabilities API     2   2   3   2   4
>Calendar API                3   2   3   2   3
>Browser API                 2   1   3   1   2
>Secure Elements API         1   4   2   3   2
>Idle API                    1   2   2   1   2
>
>
>I've also put the text above on pastebin in case your mail reader doesn't use a
>proportional font:
>
>http://pastebin.com/umUQtimx


Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 15:48:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 June 2012 15:48:26 GMT