jwrosewell: "web features" -> "solutions" #5
Comments
ekr
changed the title
|
This would ensure we focus on outcomes. |
|
Charters should define specific meaningful documents that it will generate. For a Working Group under the W3C it is generally considered that the outcomes a Working Group will create are specifically in the form of Web Features and APIs in the form of those specific documents. Working Groups rely on a framework of supporting procedures in the W3C specifically to generate such documents and that's how they are generally designed to function. The outcomes we wish to focus on are these specific types of documents so this change would, I think, make it less accurate not more accurate in describing the WG's focus. |
|
See #8 |
…patcg#5, patcg#6, patcg#8, and patcg#16. Solutions has been used to avoid steering the group towards specific outcomes. This relates to [patcg#5]( patcg#5). Privacy needs to be defined and used consistently throughout and relates to [patcg#6]( patcg#6). The PR does not address this but capitalizes the term and suggests a section to achieve this is added. The Scope has been modified to avoid excluding solutions that address the problem the group seeks to resolve utilising a combination of different disciplines and to avoid solutions that only web browsers can implement. This relates to [patcg#8]( patcg#8). Regarding access to data. References the patent policy and applies access to input data under FRAND terms and principles. This will address the issue concerning data access and aligns with the existing precedent associated with those that have something that is needed to make the specification working making all those things available to others. See the new chapter on Data Policy following Patent Policy. This relates to [patcg#16]( patcg#16). The Success Criteria are not clear and need further work. Included several other changes in the PR to better align the document with the W3C Process which we identified during our review. For example the call out of specific sections of the W3C Process are removed as these are not needed and emphasis some elements over others. The W3C Antitrust Guidelines are now referenced as these don’t form part of the W3C Process. This PR is a start to move the charter in a better direction rather than a finished charter. My colleagues advise that reviewers from Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, might wish to contact their colleagues Per Hellstrom, Tim Lamb, Oliver Bethell, and Greg Sivinski respectively for their views on the modifications.
|
Seeing #8 I believe resolves this question of broad scope changes requested, and the lack of support for them. As such, I believe this request has been deeply considered and resolved under our standards of consensus. |
Note: I am moving gdoc comments into this repo.
@jwrosewell suggests that instead of specifying that the charter produces "web features" or "APIs" it should say "solutions"
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: