RE: Proposals received

Hi. Adam.
Thanks a lot for great summary!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 4:48 AM
> To: public-sysapps@w3.org
> Subject: Proposals received
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> Thank you all for submitting proposals for our phase one deliverables.
>  Below is a list of proposals that I see in our GitHub repository.  If
> I've missed one of your proposals, please let me know.
> 
> == Contacts API ==
> 
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Contacts/Contacts.html
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/contacts_intel/Overview.html
> 
> == Telephony API ==
> 
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Telephony/Telephony.html
> *
> http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Telephony_Intel/Telephony.html
> 
> One thing I noticed about the two Contacts proposals (as well as the two
> Telephony proposals) is that they largely overlap in technical content
> (and even in editorship).  Would the editors of the Contacts proposals be
> willing to combine the two proposals into a single proposal?  Similarly,
> would the editors of the Telephony proposal be willing to combine them
> into a single proposal?

I fully agreed with this.

 
> Once you've combined proposals, please send me a pull request that deletes
> one of the existing proposals and updates the other to the combined text.
> 
> == Execution and Security Model ==
> 
> *
> http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/SecurityModel/RequirementsForS
> ecurityModel.html
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/RunTime-
> Security/Overview.html
> 
> Our charter asks that we publish a FPWD of the Execution and Security
> Model this quarter.  Mounir's proposal looks like a reasonable starting
> point for a FPWD, but there is a question in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Jan/0000.html
> 
> as to how we should coordinate with the WebApps working group.
> 
> John Lyle's comments in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Jan/0001.html
> are worth discussing, but they appear to be technical feedback that we can
> use to improve the draft after FPWD.
> 
> It sounds like the next step here is for Wonsuk and me to talk with the
> WebApps chairs to make sure we're not going to step on their toes by
> issuing a call for consensus to publish Mounir's proposal as a FPWD.

Yes. In addition, we need to check this could be an issue for charter
revision with Dave. In personal, probably it's not.


> == Alarm API ==
> 
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/alarm/Overview.html
> 
> Given that this proposal is relatively simple, I'm inclined to issue a
> call for consensus to advance this proposal to FPWD, but I welcome your
> thoughts the matter.

For this, I agree to go a call for consensus.

> == Messaging API ==
> 
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Messaging/Messaging.html
> * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Messaging/SMS.html
> *
> http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Messaging_Intel/Messaging.html
> *
> http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Messaging_webinos/Messaging.HT
> ML
> 
> We've received a number of proposals for Messaging, and there's been a
> bunch of discussion on the list.  As mentioned by Jonas in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2012Dec/0009.html,
> it's not clear to me that we're all on the same page about use cases and
> requirements.  Rather than move directly to a FPWD, I wonder we should
> first work on use cases and requirements for this deliverable.

This item is complicated, so we need to make a consensus for the scope of
the spec. Therefore I agree to work on use cases and requirements first.

> If that seems like a reasonable approach, Wonsuk and I will confer about
> how to structure that discussion.

Okey!

Best regards,
Wonsuk.
 
> == Raw Sockets API ==
> 
> We haven't received any proposals for this deliverable yet, but Claes
> Nilsson wrote that he plans to submit a proposal relatively soon:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Jan/0004.html
> 
> IMHO, we should consider proposals that missed the deadline, but we should
> preferentially focus our attention on proposals that did make the
deadline.
> 
> Thanks again, and I look forward to getting into the technical work!
> 
> Adam

Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 01:34:38 UTC