- From: pes via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 00:44:44 +0000
- To: public-device-apis-log@w3.org
(trying to summarize conversations that have happened across email and slack and other similar GH issues) RE implementor threshold: I take @cwilso's point that something not-yet-being-implemented shouldn't be a blocking concern to include something a WG's charter / scope . But I think the concern here is different. Its not that there isn't enough implementation; its more that there has been implementation experience, and we learned that the majority use of these APIs are user-harmful. Thats not in-and-of-itself a reason to oppose trying again, things could go better the second time around. But its equally reasonable to conclude from previous implementation experience that these kinds of features might just be broadly on the wrong side of a risk / benefit trade off. (Thats at least what motivated my complaint / vote). In other words, "there aren't enough implementors for the WG to take it on" is a silly complaint, but "based on previous experience, we don't think this should be part of the web platform" seems like a totally valid (procedurally and on the substance) reason to remove items from the group's charter / scope of work. -- GitHub Notification of comment by pes10k Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dap-charter/issues/98#issuecomment-666844816 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 31 July 2020 00:44:47 UTC