Re: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: Linked Web Storage Working Group Charter'

Dear Tantek,

thanks for your review.

 > The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for 
Review:

 > Linked Web Storage Working Group Charter' (Advisory Committee) for 
Mozilla
 > Foundation by Tantek Çelik.
 >
 >
 > The reviewer's organization abstains from this review.
 >
 > Additional comments about the proposal:
 >    We had several formal objections to the formerly proposed Solid 
Working
 > Group Charter, and are happy to see most of them addressed in this 
update.
 >
 > Based on the good faith updates in this charter proposal, the incremental
 > improvements to the Mission, Motivation and Background, the narrower 
Scope
 > and Deliverables descriptions, we are optimistic that further 
improvements
 > could be made as a result of both additional direct feedback and
 > coordination with the W3C Groups listed.
 >
 > The changes to the Dependencies section are an improvement, however it's
 > not clear if "adopt the following dependencies as input documents" is
 > implying that they are included in the Charter as potential
 > Recommendation-track deliverables, or if there is an intent to instead
 > incorporate them into the one deliverable listed "Linked Web Storage
 > Protocol v1.0". We are ok with this wording for now because the 
subsequent
 > section "Adding new Recommendation-track deliverables" is more clear 
about
 > the intention to "propose an updated Charter that differs only in
 > deliverables" if necessary, and should that happen, we would like to see
 > any additional deliverables be given more meaningful names similar to the
 > one deliverable named in this charter.

We are not entirely sure whether such additional input documents should 
be included in the main "Linked Web Storage" deliverable, or as new 
deliverables of their own. The Working Group will be in a better 
position to decide when they meet the situation, this vagueness is 
therefore "by design". But as you pointed out, the next section was 
meant to clarify how the Working Group is expected to proceed, should a 
separate deliverable be needed to integrate those new input documents.

   Pierre-Antoine

 > We are still skeptical that the proposed deliverable(s) will be able to
 > address the user problems noted in the Mission, Motivation and Background
 > sections. We also agree with the concerns raised by the Center for
 > Democracy and Technology. However we are hopeful that attempts to better
 > understand the problems noted and a variety of alternative approaches may
 > help explore the broader solution space, and provide a source of insights
 > for better solutions. Thus we abstain overall.
 >
 >
 > Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
 > https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/lws-wg-2024/ until 2024-09-03.
 >
 >  Regards,
 >
 >  The Automatic WBS Mailer