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. 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.) -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)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
