[foaf-protocols] new WebID Charter draft

peter williams home_pw at msn.com
Thu Dec 16 12:12:17 CET 2010


I already read it, and then notes referenced in similar vein on what a
person is Good Standing is. The Good Standing rule is an instrument of
running a working group (not an incubator).

While it's hard to object to the good standing rule in an incubator setting,
I'm just concerned that folks are going to portray the activity (and then
manage it) as a work group.

But, since I'm not a member of W3C I don't really know why I'm worried,
since I won't be there under the rules!


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hausenblas [mailto:michael.hausenblas at deri.org] 
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:46 AM
To: peter williams
Cc: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] new WebID Charter draft


Peter,

> Ok. I was just trying to ensure the incubator is not treated as a work 
> group
> - by excluding all the stuff one has to do AFTER the RFC is written... 
> to get it along the standards track. Ill assume W3C has similar steps, 
> as RFC-grade work works its way up the W3C standard track.

Just to wrap-up - one may want to study [1] first, IMO quite some questions
are addressed by this.

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/about.html

--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of
Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: peter williams <home_pw at msn.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 02:37:10 -0800
> To: Henry Story <henry.story at bblfish.net>
> Cc: <foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] new WebID Charter draft
> 
> Ok. I was just trying to ensure the incubator is not treated as a work
group
> - by excluding all the stuff one has to do AFTER the RFC is written... to
> get it along the standards track. Ill assume W3C has similar steps, as
> RFC-grade work works its way up the W3C standard track.
> 
> At the same the incubator is what those who drive it decide it is... It
will
> really come down to the leadership skill of the chair.
> 
> On such as export ciphers, I was just trying to show how NOT to get bogged
> down in engineering the solution and stay focused on incubating the new
> field; since like dealing with interoperability of legacy browser https
> support in general, ensuring the security of the edge cases of negotiating
> old export ciphersuites can consume immense resources (to ensure all that
> legacy crap doesn't compromise modern handshakes).
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry Story [mailto:henry.story at bblfish.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:49 AM
> To: peter williams
> Cc: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] new WebID Charter draft
> 
> 
> On 16 Dec 2010, at 00:17, peter williams wrote:
> 
>> "1.2 Out of Scope
>> Making the protocol complex by attempting to solve all problems. "
>> 
>> Enumerate the classes of things that are out of scope: e.g.
>> 
>> Interoperability considerations with operational or historical https
> 
> Not sure. Don't see why one should put that out of scope.
> 
>> Worrying about the implications for export grade ciphers
> 
> Did not even think about that.
> 
>> Mappings onto API frameworks
> 
> People mean so many different things by API frameworks, that this is a bit
> dangerous.
> 
>> Tracking IETF TLS I-Ds (focus only on RFCs)
> 
>> Consideration of must/should/ topics, for such as FOAF document
>> notations
> 
> I think that could be in scope. But I am not sure what you mean.
> 
>> Applicability Statements
>> Coherency analyses with web architecture
> 
> No I think we might do that.
> 
>> The above are not hard to formulate. They are basically what IETF/IESG
>> does for a standards track efforts, that we don't do in an incubation
> exercise.
> 
> I think it is better left vague what is out of scope. An XG is a very
light
> weight process, and I think we all pretty much understand here where we
want
> to go. So out of scope will be pretty much anything that sidetracks us
from
> getting there.
> 
> Henrhy
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org
>> [mailto:foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org] On Behalf Of
>> Henry Story
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 2:18 PM
>> To: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>> Subject: [foaf-protocols] new WebID Charter draft
>> 
>> So I tried to apply the suggestions put forward by everyone on this list.
>> Here they are. 
>> 
>> http://bblfish.net/tmp/2010/12/15/webid-charter-draft.html
>> 
>> With github changes here
>> 
>> https://github.com/bblfish/webid-spec/blob/master/webid-charter-draft.
>> html
>> 
>> As previously, Feedback is welcome.
>> We can then start the process tomorrow hopefully.
>> 
>> Henry
>> 
>> 
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>> 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols




More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list