W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Draft: Plan and next steps for AppCache.NG

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:57:53 -0800
Cc: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, ext Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, 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>, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-id: <F81BDDF7-A084-4149-A9E0-DA4D1E4B9DDE@apple.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>

On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:

> On 11/9/12 12:32 PM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:27 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>>> What is your expectation re the role or non-role of the Fixing AppCache CG re AppCache.NG? Will the CG close and _all_ AppCache.NG work be done by WebApps (on public-webapps)? Will the CG have some role e.g. working on UCs and Requirements? [I just noticed it's a relatively small group (31 people) although I didn't try to intersect the mail lists.]
>> From my point of view that is for the Web Apps WG and the Fixing AppCache CG to work out; most particularly those individuals in either or both who will be active in the AppCache NG work.
> Agree and that is one reason I included Tobie in the To: list. Tobie?
>>> (BTW, I agree with those that interpret WebApps' charter such that the charter will need to be formally updated to add AppCache.NG.)
>> By "formally updated" do you mean the fast-track path to add a deliverable with AC approval, or a full recharter? It is still not totally clear to me which is expected.
> Sorry, but I'm not familiar with "the fast-track path" wrt AC charter reviews.
> WebApps' charter sets an expectation an AC review is mandatory in this case (where a feature is moved from HTML5 spec to WebApps #Charter). The charter does state WG members will not have to rejoin WebApps. I didn't notice anything in the charter itself that would preclude an AC review comment on other parts of the charter.

My understanding of that process (which may be wrong) is that you don't have to write a whole new charter, just identify the new deliverable, have the AC review addition of that deliverable, and then patch in place if the AC approves. As opposed to a normal recharter which requires writing a whole draft charter, subjecting it to many stages of review including AC review of the whole thing, and then having everyone rejoin. So my expectation is that it could be done a lot faster than a recharter and that "drafting a new charter" doesn't have to be one of the steps. But I may be misunderstanding how it is supposed to work.

Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 17:58:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:38 UTC