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

[Public WebGL] Re: extension development process

On 7 Feb 2015, at 5:13 pm, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:

Frank and Dean, could we get it on the record here that you're in agreement of this wording?



On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:47 PM, 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?