W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-automotive@w3.org > January 2018

RE: Draft Auto WG recharter

From: Luennemann, Patrick (CQTM) <patrick.luennemann@carmeq.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:27:39 +0000
To: Peter Winzell <peterwinzell.gbg@gmail.com>, public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
CC: T Guild <ted@w3.org>, Paul Boyes <pb@opencar.com>
Message-ID: <996A27F21F2C51408E12371A5622E62F60CAF90B@VWAGWOXA0401.vw.vwg>
Hello Peter and the rest of the group,

How is this normally handled by the W3C?
I just forked the charter to work on it and get comments on my proposed version before we discuss it together in the group.

Would an issue “charter 2018/19” be created normally which is the hook to change something on the automotive repository (the charter document)?

I am looking forward to next week’s phone call to go through the charter. Either as a pull request, in the forked repository or in whatever form is typically used in the w3c.

Best regards
Patrick

--
Patrick Lünnemann
CQTM / Carmeq GmbH
Telefon: +49 160 901 319 84

From: Peter Winzell [mailto:peterwinzell.gbg@gmail.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 30. Januar 2018 04:49
To: Luennemann, Patrick (CQTM) <patrick.luennemann@carmeq.com>; Paul Boyes <pb@opencar.com>
Cc: T Guild <ted@w3.org>; public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Draft Auto WG recharter

Hi Patrick!
Thank you for starting the new work on the re-charter!


I had some comments but I really don’t like these email chains , do we have a github issue for the recharter ? I can’t seem to find one now, but I thought Paul B mentioned one ?.
In general my comment is that we should of course have a name of the re-charter that can be understood as Gunnar mention below. That aside, I also believe that our greatest challenge is to marry subscription type signals and the more resource pull type of data.

Looking forward to be working with the new charter!

Peter W


On 25 Jan 2018, at 12:49, Paul Boyes <Paul.Boyes@inrix.com<mailto:Paul.Boyes@inrix.com>> wrote:

Here are my thoughts:

--Perhaps a phone working session on the charter might be helpful?

—With RSI subsume VISS?  Will they remain separate?  It is not clear from the current draft.

—I agree with PatrickL’s move away from the term Infotainment to Vehicle Function. (See comments on Patrick’s pull request).

—I suggest we revisit scope.  It is ok, but could likely be cleaned up.

Otherwise, it is looking good to me.

Thanks,

Paul



Paul J. Boyes | INRIX | Director of Telematics and Standards - OpenCar  |  206-276-9675 | paul.boyes@inrix.com<mailto:paul.boyes@inrix.com> | www.inrix.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.inrix.com_&d=BQMFAg&c=QbuapHRvbn0JdC8vTVkPHg&r=PRAN7lum5Ra662QLho8LU3bhFjBvLXn3bBkFbW0Amjo&m=V5l0WXfOEJwhcE0JsN06mQ5SQhpXL-DuAuK3YcnTZoc&s=OqQVi_DcS5rv8or8hZdFvY0re6YF0Wl-_8okxrxOF0w&e=>


On Jan 22, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org<mailto:ted@w3.org>> wrote:

Here is the start of draft re-charter for Auto WG

http://w3c.github.io/automotive/charter-2018.html


The @@ indicate dates are pending for VISS to CR. I expect us to
publish VISS before sending this charter to the AC. I welcome input and
will seek review from W3C Management before sending to the AC.

--
Ted Guild <ted@w3.org<mailto:ted@w3.org>>
W3C Systems Team
http://www.w3.org



Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2018 07:29:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:06:03 UTC