Re: [hybi] updated Charter proposal

My .02 (repeating some things that have been said by others) --

A WG that has a definite charter to do a specific piece of work has a  
much greater chance of success than one that is tasked with picking a  
winner; even if the WG fails as a whole or needs to be rechartered  
later because it isn't working, it's much more productive to be  
working on one identified thing.

I think a charter for a WG along these lines needs to very carefully  
spell out what criteria that proposed changes to WS needs to meet; it  
will be very easy for it to become unproductive otherwise.

I don't think that the characterisation that Ian has been reluctant to  
take feedback is merited; I've seen him incorporate feedback from  
several communities. Of course, he's operating with a fairly strict  
set of criteria for changes to WS; YMMV.

Cheers,

On 26/10/2009, at 9:10 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:

> Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>
>> In particular, the working group will liaison with the WebApps  
>> working
>> group of the W3C around the Websockets protocol; if agreed by both  
>> parties,
>> the HyBi working group may take over the development of the  
>> Websockets
>> protocol.
>
> Could we detune this from support of the specific Websocket protocol?
> How about:
>
>  In particular, the working group will liaison with the WebApps  
> working
>  group of the W3C around a protocol to support the Websockets API;  
> if agreed
>  by both parties,  the HyBi working group may take on prime  
> responsibility
>  for the specification of the protocol.
>
>
>
> regards
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/