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
(https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/admin/webappsec-charter-2015.html#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 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:10 UTC