- From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:22:54 +0000
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:37 PM To: public-coremob@w3.org Subject: Re: Next Steps for W3C Coremob - Restatement of Options, Task Force Proposal - Last Call ... 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. <bryan> Lower compared to what? Would you call non-W3C-members "participants" and give them equal ability to contribute to the work in the IG, at least via email? 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/.] <bryan> Oh those sneaky CoreMobsters! I doubt really if anyone cares (or thought much at the time) what the document is titled, as long as they can contribute to it, and it has some positive effect. 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. <bryan> Well aside from the evidence to the contrary on support commitments, I will agree that all preferences should be considered. But I would not recommend that we give precedence to the preferences of any, unless it were to those who volunteer their time to this work.
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 22:23:48 UTC