On Wednesday 2017-05-24 09:30 -0400, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C gave advance notice that a charter is under development for > a new working group: > > WebAssembly Working Group > https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/webassembly.html > https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/ > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0009.html > > Comments on this charter can be made in its github repository, or, > if necessary, I can make comments that should be made as statements > "from Mozilla" on the Advisory Committee mailing list. > > The charter will likely be submitted to the Advisory Committee for > formal review sometime in the future.
This charter is now under formal review, whose deadline is Wednesday of this week. I've read the charter, and have the comments below, which I'm inclined to submit unless somebody tells me otherwise. But it would be good to have the likely participants in the group review the charter as well -- because they're the ones who can best review whether the plans and procedures outlined in the charter are the right thing for the WebAssembly community. (People more involved in the WebAssembly work might also be able to turn some of my comments below into more concrete suggestions.) -David ===== The "Meeting Schedule" section of the charter has requirements that are weaker than the general rules in https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#GeneralMeetings on advance notice for meetings, and should probably be removed. "of each of feature it defines" should be "of each feature it defines" The "Expected completion: Q1 2018" should probably separated into expected completion dates for v1, v2, and v3. The "Expected Completion" line also contradicts the timeline below. Perhaps the test suite and implementation report deliverable should be mandatory for the group to produce rather than optional? The timeline also has a typo in this line: "Q4 2019: First Public Working Draft of WebAssembly v.3" which I believe (from context) should say Q4 2018 rather than 2019. I also vaguely recall a manner for describing input documents into working groups, though I'm not sure if it has officially become part of the process. If it has, perhaps the description of the input documents from the CG should follow that process more formally? The standard sentence: "Most WebAssembly Working Group teleconferences will focus on discussion of particular specifications, and will be conducted on an as-needed basis." doesn't seem to make sense for a working group that basically has one specification. Perhaps it should be reworded for something that is more appropriate here. ===== Other than that, I think it seems reasonable to me, assuming the intended participants in the group have also read it and are comfortable with the plans and procedures that it lays out. If you're not... this is the time to bring it up! -- 𝄞 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
