Re: Merging with a WG

Yes, I'd like to hear everyone's nominations for potential W3C WGs.

I nominate WebApps. Prior to forming this CG we explored adding it to the
charter of WebApps, but that was hindered by a lack of specific spec/scope.
I expect more success this time because we'll be approaching them after
publishing our first draft of the spec (and thus also have an inherently
well-defined scope).

/Glen Shires


On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:

>  Although traffic on this list has lately been sparse, I believe this
> community has generally made good progress cleaning up the XG report into
> something that will be palatable to browser vendors.  I trust that once
> northern hemisphere summer projects and vacations draw to a close, we will
> resume discussions and publish our first draft in time for TPAC.****
>
> ** **
>
> I suggest that we use this break to begin planning our transition into a
> formal Working Group.  My goal would be to have the structure in place by
> TPAC so that would could kickoff meaningful discussions F2F.  Do other
> folks in this community support that goal?****
>
> ** **
>
> A significant part of merging into a WG is finding the right home.
> Several of us prefer the idea of merging with an existing group while some
> have suggested a new group.  I suggest we start that decision by reaching
> out to the existing groups to see if the charters are mutually compatible.
> If we can find a compatible home, then we put it as a vote to this group
> whether to join.  If we cannot find a compatible group by TPAC, then we
> create our own.  Does this sound like an acceptable proposal?****
>
> ** **
>
> Milan****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>