- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:31:00 -0400
- To: ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: ext Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
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:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2009AprJun/
> 0038.html
>
> I've started to integrate the various comments received so far in the
> draft charter at:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/05/DeviceAPICharter.html
>
> 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 :-)).
Regarding:
[[
2009Q4-2010Q1
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