W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Call for potential DAP charter additions - please respond by 7 July 2014

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:04:13 +0400
To: "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: "W3C Device APIs WG" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.xidn9bdny3oazb@chaals.local>
On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 18:50:04 +0400, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Ilya Bogdanovich wrote:
>
>> Hi Marcos,
>>
>> I honestly don’t think the cpu/wifi cases are in demand. Do you know  
>> any real apps using these kinds of lock?
>
> No. But I'll ask around internally. I guess the point is to have enough  
> breadth in the charter so that if we need to add something like it  
> later, we can without needing to re-charter (which takes ages and is  
> annoying for everyone for a bunch of reasons I won't go into here).

Changing the charter doesn't need to take ages. If you want to add one or  
three work items, you write a new version with the new item(s) in it,  
optionally extend the life of the charter, and fix anything you put in  
before that turned out to be wrong or needs to be changed to reflect  
changed circumstances.

Then you send it to W3C, and they check it. If the changes are simple,  
checking it should be simple, and they should be able to request a review  
within a week or so.

The review takes time - because the W3C members might want to actually  
review the idea - in particular to check that it doesn't cause IPR issues.

> Note that having the charter say that something is in scope doesn't
> mean we need to necessarily work on it. It's just saying that, we
> *may* work on it if people want to standardize it during the next 2
> years.

Having random "stuff we might want to do one day" in the charter is a good  
reason why charters take extra time to review. The more clearly you define  
the work you *are* doing, the easier it generally is for a member to make  
a yes/no decision on whether that is appropriate.

...

> As above. Don't worry too much about the API design right now :) Just  
> think more about "what are some awesome things DAP could potentially  
> work on to keep the Web competitive over the next 2 years? Is any other  
> group working on that?". We just want to make sure we have enough breath  
> of coverage in the DAP charter to work on useful things (even if we  
> don't end up working on them).

I would encourage you to write a charter that says what you are going to  
do. If it turns out that W3C gets very inefficient at reviewing and  
approving minor updates, we should deal with that, but not by asking for a  
priori approval to work on *anything that might be cool*. In a world where  
some W3C members have large IPR portfolios and actively use them, that is  
like asking for unnecessary trouble.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 16:04:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:10 UTC