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

Yes, I agree, and this has been our practice.  I just think it is important
that new specs that aren't in the charter give clarity about their scope
and use cases to a new reader who hasn't followed our mailing list.

FPWD triggers an IPR commitment, so we owe it to our participants to make
it as obvious as possible what the spec intends to do and what ground it
will cover at that point.  Obviously this will likely evolve, but unless we
can take a good shot at it, I think its acceptable and preferable to
develop things as unofficial drafts.



On Wed Feb 11 2015 at 6:21:49 AM Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

> 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.)
>