- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:32:10 -0500
- To: ext Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- CC: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <doug@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On 11/6/12 10:18 AM, ext Tobie Langel wrote: > On 11/6/12 2:47 PM, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > >> * Will WebApps need a charter update to formally add AppCache? Yes (see >> #WebApps-charter). > Do you make a distinction between a re-charter and a charter update? For the purposes of AC reviews, I consider them the same. > It > seems the current charter is designed to make taking work from the HTML WG > a simple(r) process[1]. As Robin noted/quoted in the HTMLWG's minutes, the Charter sets an expectation that AC review is required although it is good that re-registering WG participants is not required: [[ Specifically, because of the close relationship of the WebApps WG and the HTML WG in terms of participants, market, and community, the WebApps WG may opt to take on a limited number of specifications which were initially part of the HTML5 specification that have been split off for more general use with other languages. Consistent with W3C process, anAdvisory Committee Review <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#ReviewAppeal>will evaluate whether the additional deliverable should be added to the WebApps WG charter. The expectation is that if the review is successful, Working Group participants will not be required to re-join the Working Group. For any work transferred to the WebApps WG, the first draft published in the WebApps WG is considered the first public Working Draft for application of thePatent Policy exclusion rules <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Obligations>. ]] BTW, another option re the scope/charter questions is that the HTMLWG is simply using public-webapps list for all AppCache discussions and that HTMLWG retains (exclusive) decision making rights e.g. publication decisions. I can see some +/- on this approach, including it could conceivably eliminate the need for WebApps to recharter ;-). -AB
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 15:32:50 UTC