Re: Draft Charter for a Device API and Security WG

On May 13, 2009, at 10:02 AM, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

> Le mardi 12 mai 2009 à 14:36 -0400, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
>> Dom or Philipp - I assume someone from the Team will now take over
>> the editing of this Draft charter.
> Thomas and I are taking over the editing of the charter, indeed, as a
> follow-up to the advance notice that was just sent:
> 0038.html
> I've started to integrate the various comments received so far in the
> draft charter at:
> I haven't removed/modified the milestones table yet; Robin's latest
> proposal is appealing to me, though. I'll try and see if that would  
> fly
> wrt process requirements.

Sigh. It appears you already removed it (and I thought there was a  
high value on consensus here :-)).


     A subset of the deliverables that the WG considers to be of  
higher priority or maturity progresses along Recommendation track.

Text like this would permit a Chair to block a spec that a minority  
of the WG wants to progress. As such, I object to it since a  
requirement of the Charter is that all specs must be given equal  
priority i.e. any spec may progress if a Member is willing to provide  
the necessary resources.

I also don't understand the use of "maturity" in this context. The  
Charter must assure the Chair treats all inputs fairly and equally  
(regardless of their "maturity" or provenance).

-Regards, Art Barstow

Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:32:24 UTC