Chris, I got the impression from our discussion yesterday that you forgot about this thread.
Our action is still open: ACTION-38 Chairs to review need for amending charter with Director http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/38 Doug has been noodling in this area lately; Doug, do you have anything you want to show Chris yet? On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 17:35 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 15:22 -0800, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Sorry, question wasn't clear. > > > > Actually, NO, I don't think the charter should be amended; I DO think a > > revised charter > > should be reviewed; > > I don't understand the difference. The process for amending the charter, > as I understand it, is to send a revised charter to the membership > for review. > > Again: > > "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 > > > if the WG is to take on this work, however, I believe it must be > > in the charter. > > OK, what words do you want in the charter? > > > I would prefer immediate-mode 2D graphics to be part of the graphics > > effort. > > Even in that case, there would be some words in the HTML WG charter > about the relationship to the graphics effort. > > If you'd like to propose wording for the charter of something in the > graphics effort, that would help too. > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
