Two W3C Charter review abstentions

[L. David Baron]

I plan to abstain from the reviews of the following W3C charters:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2011Aug/0001.html
http://www.w3.org/2011/05/HCLSIGCharter-proposal
Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group Charter

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2011Aug/0002.html
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/mbui-wg-charter
Model-Based UI Working Group Charter

I think it's worth explicitly abstaining when it's something we're
not interested in rather than just failing to respond, both because
it indicates that we didn't just forget to respond, and because
there's been some discussion as to whether failure to respond is
equivalent to explicit abstention or equivalent to support.

If anyone feels that we should respond in some other way, please let
me know.

-David

--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ 𝄂

[Mike Shaver]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:43 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:
> I plan to abstain from the reviews of the following W3C charters:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2011Aug/0001.html
> http://www.w3.org/2011/05/HCLSIGCharter-proposal
> Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group Charter

"Presentation of these taxonomies and methodologies to government,
academia and industry organizations that have a keen interest in the
application of information technology to these domains, and support of
their efforts to adopt Semantic Web technologies."

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2011Aug/0002.html
> http://www.w3.org/2011/01/mbui-wg-charter
> Model-Based UI Working Group Charter

"This could take the form of UML diagrams and OWL ontologies, and
cover the various levels of abstraction (e.g. as defined in the
Cameleon reference framework, as well as that needed to support
dynamic adaption to changes in the context)."

Yep, good call.

Mike