- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:01:32 -0700
- To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>
- CC: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>, "w3c-ac-forum@w3.org" <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "dougt@mozilla.com" <dougt@mozilla.com>, "dbaron@mozilla.com" <dbaron@mozilla.com>, "tlr@w3.org" <tlr@w3.org>
I'm sorry to hear that webapps is overloaded, because it makes me wonder whether the liaison approach for insuring that the security and packaging work are reviewed outside the group was actually the right choice. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net -----Original Message----- From: w3c-ac-forum-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-ac-forum-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of T.V Raman Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:29 AM To: plh@w3.org Cc: raman@google.com; arun@mozilla.com; w3c-ac-forum@w3.org; public-device-apis@w3.org; dougt@mozilla.com; dbaron@mozilla.com; tlr@w3.org Subject: Re: Seeking feedback on a new WG to specify APIs for device services Still trying to shed some light in the fog ... It's been clearly heard by all involved that the webapps group is overloaded. It's also clear that if additional work were added there, that group would need more structure --- perhaps it could be said that it needs more structure even for its current set of work items. That said, both your assertions "extra work needs more resources" and "extra work requires more liaison" are equally true of whether new work is done in a separate WG or in an existing WG, so going forward, I'd request that such assertions not be made in a form that implies that they apply to one, and not the other. Also, in my experience, the W3C when creating new WGs often creates new activities as an umbrella for the new WG (I give you multimodal, ubiqeb, video) --- and usually states "activities are "just a management too" --- but in my experience, I usually find that once approved, some perhaps only slightly related WG also shows up in the new activity alongside the WG that was being originally discussed. Of course, the complex tree structure in the org that gets created then makes liaison activity even more complex. Philippe Le Hegaret writes: > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 10:08 -0700, T.V Raman wrote: > > Philippe -- > > Good points all. > > > > Assuming that "if it must be done, then it must be done at the > > W3C" with respect to the APIs work, could you help the membership > > understand the following with respect to resourcing -- staff > > resources, chair resources etc with for (A) and (B) below: > > I can partially help, ie only from the perspective on the Interaction > domain only. > > > A) The work is added to WebAPI WG > > B) The work is started under a new WG. > > I spoke to the team contacts and one of the Chair of the WebApps Group. > They all indicated that they wouldn't be able to take on more work with > the current resources. So, my rough estimate is that the level of extra > resources necessary to take on this new work would be similar whether > it's within WebApps or in a separate group. If we do it in WebApps, it > would require the group to get more structured (through task forces). > > Philippe > -- Best Regards, --raman Title: Research Scientist Email: raman@google.com WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/ Google: tv+raman GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 21:03:01 UTC