- From: Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:40:52 +0900
- To: 'Adam Barth' <w3c@adambarth.com>, 'Dave Raggett' <dsr@w3.org>
- Cc: 'W3C SysApps' <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Adam, Why don't we put this in Phase 1? > Media Storage API 5 2 5 3 5 If the resource matters, I suggest we put "Media Storage API" in Phase 1 and "Raw Sockets API" in phase 2. > Raw Sockets API 2 2 3 2 2 Regards, Jungkee > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 2:39 AM > To: Dave Raggett > Cc: W3C SysApps > Subject: Re: poll results > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote: > > Leaping the gun slightly, but here is a summary of the results of the > > poll on the proposed deliverables > > > > http://www.w3.org/2012/06/sysapps-poll-results.html > > > > No conclusions as yet, but feel free to draw your own. > > I've crunched the numbers from the poll, and here are some thoughts. > Below, I've tried to (roughly!) rank the deliverables based on the > results of the poll. > > A) There seems to be a group of deliverables that have strong interest > from the folks who responded to the poll. These deliverables have > more than two organizations interested in implementing them and > multiple folks willing to contribute editorial resources. > > B) There seems to be another groups of deliverables that have somewhat > weaker interest from the respondents. These deliverables have only > two organizations interested in implementing them and typically have > only one organization willing to contribute editorial resources. > > C) The next group lacks editorial resources. We could shake the trees > and try to find some editorial resources, but we've got pretty of work > on our plate already. These seem like good candidates to defer to > later. > > D) The last group has fewer than two implementors. Without multiple > implementors, we're going to have trouble moving these deliverables > through the W3C process. > > Based on this information, I've made a proposal for what should be in > our charter. I've included all the deliverables from group (A), and > I've also included the Secure Elements API and the Idle API from group > (B). These are the two deliverables in group (B) that have multiple > organizations willing to contribute editorial resources. > > As always, I welcome your feedback, but I would like to come to > closure on a charter in the near term so that we can begin the > technical work. > > Many thanks, > Adam > > > Note: The column order is the same as on > <http://www.w3.org/2012/06/sysapps-poll-results.html>. > > Poll Results > ============ > > Strong Interest > --------------- > > Media Storage API 5 2 5 3 5 > Bluetooth API 3 2 5 3 3 > Alarm API 3 3 5 3 3 > Contacts API 4 3 4 2 5 > Messaging API 3 3 3 3 4 > Telephony API 4 3 3 2 4 > Raw Sockets API 2 2 3 2 2 > Device Capabilities API 2 2 3 2 4 > Calendar API 3 2 3 2 3 > Browser API 2 1 3 1 2 > > Only Two Implementors > --------------------- > > Secure Elements API 1 4 2 3 2 > Idle API 1 2 2 1 2 > DNS Resolution API 1 1 2 2 1 > Network Interface API 2 1 2 2 2 > Resource Lock API 1 1 2 1 2 > Serial API 1 1 2 2 1 > Application API 1 1 2 2 2 > Accounts API 1 1 2 2 2 > Web Intent Registration API 1 1 2 1 4 > > No Editorial Resources > ---------------------- > > File System API 3 3 2 4 > System Settings API 2 2 1 2 > Keyboard/IME API 1 2 1 1 > Background Services API 1 2 1 3 > > Less Than Two Implementors > -------------------------- > > Power Management API 1 1 1 2 > Spellcheck API 3 1 1 > Sensors API 1 1 2 > USB API > > > Proposal > ======== > > Phase 1 > ------- > > Runtime Model (not polled) > Security Model (not polled) > Alarm API 3 3 5 3 3 > Contacts API 4 3 4 2 5 > Messaging API 3 3 3 3 4 > Telephony API 4 3 3 2 4 > Raw Sockets API 2 2 3 2 2 > > Phase 2 > ------- > > Bluetooth API 3 2 5 3 3 > Media Storage API 5 2 5 3 5 > Device Capabilities API 2 2 3 2 4 > Calendar API 3 2 3 2 3 > Browser API 2 1 3 1 2 > Secure Elements API 1 4 2 3 2 > Idle API 1 2 2 1 2 > > > I've also put the text above on pastebin in case your mail reader > doesn't use a proportional font: > > http://pastebin.com/umUQtimx
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 01:41:01 UTC