Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join the
WG you mention is just as high, especially when there's no indication that a
number of browsers intend to join that group. I don't think it's a random
process question, I think it's rather fundamental issue. If we agree that
the right way forward is to create a new WG for each API and we have to get
people to join each WG to get any IP considerations, it would be much more
effective just to do things in WHATWG and mail out a "please sign this and
return" letter. It would probably get the same number of responses and be a
hell of a lot lower overhead, while effectively offering as much (or rather,
as little) benefit as we get from being forced to start a new group for each
API.

-Ian

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> Hi Ian,
>
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:04 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> > With all due respect, I think that if we have to re-charter or create a
> new working group each time a new API comes up we are all doomed. The
> overhead of creating and monitoring so many WGs is not appealing to many of
> us.
>
> That's a recurring theme, with the following constraints:
>
>   • people with IP don't want "wildcard" groups because the IP risks for
> them are hard to evaluate;
>   • people who want to get work done don't want to have to jump through the
> bureaucratic hoops of creating new groups;
>   • people who are focused on a single topic complain about "monster"
> groups that cover too many topics.
>
> So there probably isn't an option that will make everyone happy, though
> improvements are being discussed.
>
> Thankfully those problems don't apply here. There is an existing group so
> there's no need for bureaucratic hoops — those have been handled and
> everything is primed to go. The overhead involved in monitoring it involves
> clicking the form to join it and filtering the related list somewhere
> convenient — which can be the same mailbox as an existing one if there's too
> much overhead involved in reading from two mailboxes.
>
> So can we quit the process discussion and just get to work?
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>
>