Results of Informal CfC to close the SysApps WG

There were no objections for the CfC on closing the SysApps WG.  One 
explicit reply in support.  So, by the typical rules for a CfC, that 
would be approved (if this was still a WG).

There was a good deal of discussion about the phase 1 specs, other than 
the ones already dropped (in WebApps and DAP about .

There are two phase 1 that something should be done about:

1. TCP UDP Sockets - seems to be there is agreement it doesn't fit in 
WebApps WG, DAP WG or any current WG because it doesn't fit with the Web 
Security model and SysApps was the alternative for that and Sys Apps 
hasn't gotten implementers support.  What needs to be done I think is 
for the people on this list to do a CfC on whether there are any 
objections to W3C allowing it to move out to a CG or elsewhere.  That 
should be done before people quit this WG (as we have) and unsubscribe 
to the list.

2. App Lifecycle.  Looks like it could be a fit for Web Apps WG, but 
someone would need to step forward and commit to editing it and driving 
it.  This one isn't eligible for the relicensing policy for moving 
things to CGs or elsewhere, that it got to FPWD, and this hadn't.  Looks 
like this was written by a fairly small number of people (before moving 
it to SysApps), so maybe something could be done directly - if a WG 
doesn't want it.




On 2015-03-26 11:42, Wayne Carr wrote:
> I think it's likely this WG will close. We're going to quit the WG, 
> and we're handling what we need with the CfC that ends tomorrow, but 
> we'll do a couple of others that may be useful to the WG participants 
> so their opinions are known.  (So, just to be clear, we support the 
> two CfC's I'll start -- but it also doesn't matter to us what the 
> result is -- this is just to help the WG participants have their 
> opinions known by W3C staff).
>
> At the bottom, there is a list of some reasons people may want the 
> SysApps WG to close.  Those are not part of the proposal.  They're 
> there just as background. Responses to the informal CfC could list 
> reasons to keep the WG open.  I actually can't think of any other than 
> hoping something will change and the work will get done, but that can 
> happen by creating a new WG which may be easier than making the case 
> now for approval for a new charter.
>
> Call for Consensus Proposal:
> The participants in the SysApps Working Group believe the SysApps 
> Working Group should be closed.
>
> Please respond to this list by end of day (anywhere) Thursday, 2 April 
> 2014.  Silence will be considered agreement.  As always, responding to 
> the poll is preferred.  Since we don't have a Chair, there won't be an 
> attempt to assess consensus.  The responses will stand on their own 
> for W3C management to consider. Also, if you disagree with taking this 
> poll, that would be a useful response as well.  I'll do a simple 
> count, yes or no, summary after its over.
>
>
> ---- Background - not part of the proposal and can be skipped -
>
> Some reasons for closing the SysApps WG
>
> 1. WG Charter expired 1 October 2014.  If a WG Charter is not extended 
> (simply an email from Director to AC extending it) or renewed through 
> rechartering (Advisory Committee Review and Director consent), the WG 
> should close when the Charter expires.  It is not good for the W3C as 
> an organization to have work continue with no review from the Advisory 
> Committee and Director on whether W3C resources should be expended on it.
> 2. No request was made to extend the Charter or to re-charter in 6 
> months by the end of this CfC.
> 3. WG has no Chairs.  Both no longer in WG.  One no longer with 
> employer while in WG.
> 4. Work on specifications is not underway.
> 5. The key execution model and security model envisioned by the 
> Charter were not able to gain consensus.  A better approach seems to 
> be to explore Service Workers and new Trust and Permission extensions 
> to the usual Web security model. This WG was explicitly for standalone 
> apps outside the usual Web Security model (otherwise the DAP WG would 
> have done it), so the likely direction this will take is outside the 
> intended scope of this WG.
> 5. There aren't multiple implementations for the specs so no prospect 
> of reaching REC.  Two implementers have either already quit (Google) 
> or are about to (Intel).
> 6. Specs that can't complete the requirements for REC or where there 
> still isn't consensus on how to proceed are better done in Community 
> Groups (CG).  CGs have a patent licensing model based on contributions 
> that does not depend on completing specs with multiple 
> implementations. WGs have no patent licensing if the spec never 
> completes.  CGs also has a permissive copyright license that makes it 
> easier for contributors to continue work outside the group if the 
> effort fails (and risky, experimental specs often fail)
> 7. If it becomes clearer at some point in the future how to do what 
> SysApps was created to accomplish, a new WG can be created, but there 
> is no reason to have a WG stay in a "zombie" state waiting for that.   
> Closing the WG doesn't mean having specs like the Charter planned for 
> wouldn't have been good.  Closing the WG means this approach can't 
> achieve its goals at this time (e.g. because two will not implement).
> 8. Key parts of the initial scope are underway in Community Groups 
> aimed at the Web security model (Bluetooth and NFC). It seems better 
> now to head in that direction.
>
>
>