[standby api, charter] Proposed approach to progressing Standby API with respect to DAP Charter

DAP WG members:

There is interest and discussion on the list regarding a Standby API.  When we reach the point of publishing a FPWD there may be some concern as to whether the work is in scope of the charter, as FPWD is where IPR obligations may be incurred. The Standby API is not explicitly listed in the charter as a deliverable.

I don’t believe the WG should decide the scope issue via a CfC - scope is an issue that AC Reps should have input on. 

There are two ways forward:

(1) We re-charter the working group and explicitly list the Standby API in the charter as a deliverable.

This process would clarify the charter and give AC Reps an opportunity to review.  Given the cost in terms of time and effort, additional items to add to the charter at the same time would make the process more cost-effective.

(2) We request to publish a FPWD of the Standby API, highlighting to the W3C Director and AC Reps that this is not explicitly listed in the charter but that it could be considered in the scope of "An API to react to a device power status” [1]

In this case we would be calling for objections at the time of FPWD to this interpretation of the charter, again letting the AC Reps and Director decide.

Choice #1 would be clearly called for if we have other additional items to add to the charter. Early feedback on the appropriateness of #2 to your organization would be appreciated.

I suggest we keep working on the Standby API, so regardless of the approach we can progress it at that time.

Please indicate on the list if you are aware of any additional work items that would be appropriate to add to the DAP charter or thoughts on this approach.

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair DAP
@fjhirsch

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/07/DeviceAPICharter#deliverables

Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 20:17:00 UTC