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

On 02/11/2015 09:07 AM, Mike West wrote:
> 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?

So long as it's in-scope, new work doesn't need to be listed as an
explicit deliverable. All the same, statements of goals can be helpful
to explain the work to readers.

> 
> 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. :/

Keep at it! Our chartering practices are not anti-modularity.

Thanks!
--Wendy

> 
> --
> 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.)
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)

Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:14:47 UTC