RE: Next Steps for W3C Coremob - Restatement of Options, Task Force Proposal - Last Call

-----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