W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > March 2015

Informal CfC to close the SysApps WG

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:42:52 -0700
Message-ID: <5514532C.9040806@linux.intel.com>
To: "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
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.
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 18:43:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 26 March 2015 18:43:21 UTC