RE: Proposal for a Runtime and Security Model FPWD

Hi Mounir,

I don't think it's fair. I definitely agree to the process you suggested where anyone who makes good contribution should be either acknowledged or added as a co-Editor on the way even after FPWD. However, it's a different story. Samsung and Mozilla had to make a single proposal after all and we decided to step back to make things happen. That being considered, I don't think it makes sense to go FPWD with a single editor. What would you have done if Samsung's proposal had been determined to be the base document? We request at least one editor from Samsung should be added from the beginning having the same role and responsibility.

Regards,
Jungkee


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mounir@lamouri.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:26 AM
> 
> 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 Thursday, 21 February 2013 07:14:20 UTC