- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:37:05 -0400
- To: public-coremob@w3.org
On 3/21/13 2:49 AM, ext Jo Rabin wrote: > Here are 4 ideas about task forces: The internal feedback I received supports C (gap analysis) and D (esp. responsive design). Re the IG vs. CG debate, the TL;DR version is our preference is to morph this CG into the "Web and Mobile Interest Group". The relatively broad set of topics proposed for the group's scope is consistent with other IG charters (f.ex. Web & TV IG), whereas CGs tend to be a bit more narrowly scoped. IGs also have a lower barrier for all participants, provided the group's list is self-subscribe-able by non-Members. Additionally, IGs cannot create specifications or Recommendation but rather WG "Notes". This eliminates the confusion caused by CGs like CoreMob that [misleadingly] include the term "Specification" in their document titles. [BTW, that bug really should be fixed for the CoreMob 2012 document i.e. s/Specification/Report/.] Lastly, I believe the only people that have actually agreed to do any work here are Jo and Dom and since they prefer IG, we should certainly consider their preference. -AB
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 20:37:34 UTC