- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:54:49 +0200
- To: "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>
- CC: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, "wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com" <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
On 18/04/2013 17:42 , Mandyam, Giridhar wrote: >> The point of a charter is to define the scope of deliverables so >> that participants can estimate the breadth of the patent >> commitment. > > This feature was not defined within scope of the charter based on our > understanding. This is why I was asking for it to be called out in > the charter. If you can describe how it is possible to have a Web-based Execution Model that does not feature a notion of origin — and therefore potentially a scheme — then I can understand how this may not be clearly in scope. But I really can't think of a situation in which this would not be needed. Further note that after much discussion precisely on this topic, and before the chartering of this group, the community's consensus was that a new scheme was needed for the widgets case. Barring new technical information, due diligence in reviewing the field's best practices and consensus would lead to the conclusion that a scheme would be part of the runtime. > In order to move this forward, would it be possible to modify the > charter from its current form to better describe the deliverables of > the group? If there is some commitment to this, we can withdraw our > objection. The charter is up for renewal in October 2014. I am confident that it will strive to provide as good a description of the group's deliverables as it can. The alternative is to recharter this group, which will require voting by the AC and everyone on this group to re-join. I don't really understand what that would achieve, unless it's a delaying tactic. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 15:55:01 UTC