On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:51 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Thursday 2016-09-29 07:46 -0700, Tantek Çelik wrote: >> > Marked as deliverables to be taken up if incubation suggests likely >> > success: >> > Background Synchronisation; Filesystem API; FindText API; HTML Import; >> > Input Methods; Packaging; Quota API >> >> This section is confusing and weakly worded. >> >> Expanded just below this link: >> https://www.w3.org/2016/08/web-platform-charter-draft.html#web-workers >> as <h4>Potential deliverables</h4> (no id / fraglink) >> >> Either these are some sort of odd pre-incubation special treatment >> (bad / unnecessary in a charter), or if this is a claim that the >> listed specs *have* passed incubation, I'd expect citations that >> document as such (not just a link to an intent template). Otherwise >> wait for specs to pass incubation, document as such, and then propose >> a charter update with actual (not "potential") deliverables. >> >> I'd prefer that these "Potential deliverables" be dropped (FO), unless >> citations are provided to incubation successes, and if so, then just >> make them "deliverables". > > I'm a little concerned about making this a formal objection. > Rechartering is a somewhat painful process, and if a group thinks > that a particular incubation project is likely to suceed in the near > future and doesn't want to have to recharter again, it seems > reasonable to allow them to say that they'd like the result of that > incubation to be in their charter scope.
That reasoning works for me. However: > Or are these things that are just starting out rather than things > that have been in progress for a while? (That seems unlikely, since > I've been hearing about some of them for quite a while.) I don't know for each of the specific items, so I'm going to dig deeper and see if I can determine their relative incubation maturity. I too have been hearing about some of them for a while (e.g. BG sync). I would have preferred that any such item come with a citation of a specific "Intent to Migrate"[1] post with details for evaluation per the WICG/WPWG's own processes but I'm not seeing any. Also, just found this in the charter: <a href="@@">announcement</a> Not really acceptable. Tantek [1] https://wicg.github.io/admin/intent-to-migrate.html > > -David > > -- > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 > 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know > What I was walling in or walling out, > And to whom I was like to give offense. > - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
