Dan Connolly wrote:
Chris, Julian,
You said "yes" to:
"Should a revised charter be reviewed by the W3C membership per section
5.3 Modification of an Activity of the W3C Process document?"
-- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/results#xq2
Note the request just below the question:
"If so, please suggest specific changes in a comment."
Would you please suggest some specific changes that would satisfy you?
Likewise, Sam, you wrote:
Please treat this answer as if it were "yes, but only if the
charter was modified first".
-- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results
Please suggest a change that would satisfy you.
While I'm uncomfortable about rampant scope creep, and uncomfortable
about a monolithic standard, I think that objections without
constructive proposals should merely be noted and should not otherwise
impede further progress.
Note that since there isn't consensus to accept a
canvas requirement, it's up to the chairs to figure out whether
the question carries. I'd like to know if there's a straightforward
charter change that will satisfy the dissenters while I'm thinking
it over and talking it over with my co-chair in the next few days.
Given that there is evident widespread support for this feature, and no
specific proposals to revise the charter have surfaced, I would like to
amend my vote at this time to be an "abstain".
- Sam Ruby
