- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:52:05 -0400
- To: "ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com>
- CC: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
On 3/28/13 6:22 PM, ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: > -----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? In terms of IP commitment (IG has none) so it is easier for at least the Member to participate in IG. > Would you call non-W3C-members "participants" and give them equal ability to contribute to the work in the IG, at least via email? Well of course. -Cheers, AB
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 22:52:40 UTC