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

Re: 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 15:21:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=cJf+WPaA8L1nTW-d2U3qhA95w2CEfb+H3UrWKLjmgEcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Cc: Dan Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:
> 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.

Great. Thanks for the clarification. May a thousand tiny specs bloom. ;)

-mike

--
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 14:22:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:10 UTC