W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > February 2015

Process? (was Re: CfC to publish FPWD of "Upgrade Insecure Resources"; Deadline Feb 17th.)

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:07:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=fvkFtvRWzoLVuEVuixVM+QSprdRz6+9vzc0ZTo6fFYwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Dan Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Forking this bit too, and dropping people from CC who aren't Brad,
Wendy, or Dan.

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is some of this in the introduction, but I think for FPWD it is
> important to be very clear about goals for an initial community review -
> especially since this is new work not explicitly listed in our proposed
> charter.

>From a process perspective, do we need to explicitly list every
deliverable in the charter? If we come up with something new in the
future that's covered by the charter's scope
do we need to recharter in order to work on it?

I prefer to work on smaller, more focused documents, as I have the
vague impression that it increases clarity. A rechartering requirement
would make it much more appealing to just jam everything into MIX or
CSP. :/

Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany,
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine
Elizabeth Flores
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:08:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:46 UTC