[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Public WebGL] extension development process

Sounds good to me, as long as we're all in agreement that "If an extension cannot advance through the extension process it can be rejected." uses "can" and not "will".

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have introduced the rejected status to the extension registry, added
> wording explaining when an extension can be rejected and clarified the
> process of extension advancement. Below are the added wordings:
>> Every extension should advance to Khronos ratified. If an extension cannot
>> advance through the extension process it can be rejected.
>> Rejected extensions should never be implemented. An extension enters
>> rejected status because consensus on it could not be reached at the proposal
>> stage or technical difficulties arise during implementation at the draft
>> stage. A community approved extension can only be rejected in extraordinary
>> circumstances. A Khronos ratified extension cannot be rejected.
> This is of course open for debate, but I find it a good idea. Can we form a
> consensus on this?

This sounds fine.

You are currently subscribed to public_webgl@khronos.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
the following command in the body of your email:
unsubscribe public_webgl