Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-02 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
(Alissa Cooper) Yes
(Barry Leiba) Yes
(Pete Resnick) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Alia Atlas) No Objection
(Richard Barnes) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection
Comment (2014-08-18 for -00-02)
This all looks fine. One question for my benefit. "- Define a set of new iCalendar properties and parameters to standardise some existing experimental X- properties in common use, based on a survey of existing implementations." I wasn't quite sure whether this meant standardizing an "X-Foo" experimental property, or standardizing a renamed "Foo:". It's unlikely that needs to be stated in a charter, either way, but just in case it does ... if the deliverable was "standardise some existing experimental properties", I wouldn't have thought to ask, but given the existence of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648, I wondered.
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
Comment (2014-08-19 for -00-02)
No objection, but... > out of scope for the working group: > > - Any change that significantly impacts backwards compatibility with > existing deployed iCalendar/iTIP/CalDAV clients and servers. I wonder whether what you consider as significant is the same as what I would call significant.