Re: Proposal for a Runtime and Security Model FPWD

On 20/02/13 04:35, Jungkee Song wrote:
> Hi Mounir, Jonas,
> 
> On behalf of Samsung, I would like to clarify our position.
> 
> What we accepted is to use Mozilla's proposal as a base document to work on as co-Editors. It's not that we stop contributions but just let it be started right away under the situation where you showed some opposite view on our merged proposal.
> 
> We would like to act as co-Editors.

Hi,

To begin with, I would like to clarify that Mozilla isn't trying to
control this specification, we are open to any contributions, technical
or editorial.

However, before adding someone as co-editor, we would like to see active
and valuable contributions to the specification edition. The W3C process
is that when someone or a group of people contribute to a specification
by proposing a feature, showing a bug or doing a one-time fix,
his/her/its name is added to the "Acknowledgement" section.

Samsung did some great technical contributions to this specification and
I hope it was acknowledged correctly - I would be glad to add anyone to
make sure credit is given.

It sounds like Samsung in addition wants to contribute editorially with
actual patches to the specification text. This is great too and I will
gladly add any active editing contributors names as co-editor.

Maybe one way forward is to make sure that we get a FPWD. Then we can
add names to the document as we start getting patches for that draft
document. Again, I want to be clear that I'm happy to add anyone as
editor as soon as we have active contributions to the spec text from
them. The list of editors is by no means unchangable after the FPWD.
It's just as easy to add editors after FPWD as it is before.

Thanks,
--
Mounir

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 19:26:53 UTC