W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > May 2009

RE: Draft Charter for a Device API and Security WG

From: David Rogers <david.rogers@omtp.org>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 17:57:29 +0100
Message-ID: <4C83800CE03F754ABA6BA928A6D94A0601A5B674@exch-be14.exchange.local>
To: "Arthur Barstow" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, "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>, "Philipp Hoschka" <ph@w3.org>
I'm also a bit confused - the version that was being edited in the discussions (see Art's email at [1]) is not reflected in the current charter link from Dom. I have some comments I'd like to put in, but please first update with all the comments received.



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009May/0012.html

-----Original Message-----
From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
Sent: 13 May 2009 17:31
To: ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux
Cc: ext Robin Berjon; Marcin Hanclik; public-device-apis@w3.org; Philipp Hoschka
Subject: 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:
> 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 :-)).


     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 16:58:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:10 UTC