- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:34:13 +0200
- To: ifette@google.com
- Cc: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
HI Ian, On Sep 20, 2011, at 19:38 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: > Why do we need to recharter? I don't get the point of having a WG that has to recharter every single time that we develop a new API. I can't begin to tell you how sympathetic I am to this feeling, and the frustration that goes with. As a freelance web hacker I have no IP to care for, and I very much wish that all companies with IP portfolios had the same attitude that you have. But that's hardly under my control and I'm merely pointing out that pushing this through WebApps risks bureaucratic overhead whereas there is an option that involves no bureaucracy. Note that if your primary concern is Microsoft providing feedback, if they so wish they always can. They've provided extensive feedback to DAP in the past, e.g. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Mar/att-0001/microsoft-api-draft-final.html#capture_api_extensions > But if we go to a world where we say "Let's create a new WG for each API" then we get no benefit out of the W3C whatsoever. Hear, hear. Thankfully in this case it's a WG that's already created, and has ~15 deliverables. Still smaller than WebApps, but better than 15 WGs! Note that a complicating factor is that the feedback we got from others (e.g. Mozilla) was the opposite: they'd rather have seen DAP be several smaller WGs. It's hard to please everyone, which is precisely why I'm so keen to avoid pushing this into process-space, getting to work where it's process-easiest, and ensuring reviews in every way we know. If people want to review they will no matter which group it's in; if they don't it won't happen even if they are in the group. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 19:34:46 UTC