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

Re: Informal CfC to close the SysApps WG

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:19:15 -0700
Message-ID: <551993A3.2010306@linux.intel.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Hi Art,

We did another informal CfC last week for Contacts, Messaging, Telephony 
(note these are SysApps, standalone apps, not based on the Web Security 
model).  Since we don't have a Chair and the Charter expired 6 months 
ago, we won't be judging consensus but there were no objections to 
stopping work on those and no objection to asking the Director to 
relicense those to allow them to go to a CG. That request to the 
Director will be from Intel, not the WG (because we think with an 
expired Charter there isn't a WG, just the participants who were in it.  
Those 3 all had only a single implementation - and were on the list of 
things likely to go since a poll about a year ago.  So those all would 
be given a copyright license that let others try to continue working on 
them if they wanted to.

For the others, if anyone ever wanted to move them to a CG, they need to 
know the opinion of the SysApps WG participants and the editors in 
particular.  I'm going to start another CfC on the remaining specs that 
reached FPWD: App URI, Task Scheduler, TCP UDP Sockets.  The CfC would 
be to stop work on it (in case the WG is not closed - it's been 
lingering for 6 months with an expired charter), determine if there are 
any objections to moving those to a CG, but ask that other WGs like Web 
Apps consider adopting them before they are relicensed.  (The 
relicensing to move to a CG can only happen for something that got as 
far as FPWD, so this would conclude CfCs for all 6 of those).

more below for particular specs  ...

On 2015-03-30 04:13, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 3/26/15 2:42 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
>> I think it's likely this WG will close. 
> Would someone please provide a short summary of the consensus of the 
> proposed fate/plan of each of the documents in SysApps' roadmap 
> <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/#roadmap>? Phase 1 specs in particular:
> * App Lifecycle
-- this never reached FPWD, may be good for Web Apps to consider this -- 
it's service workers related
> * App URI

little spec, and I think people find it useful.  if some WG wanted to 
pick it up ...
> * Task Scheduler

-- also Service Workers related, is Web Apps interested in something related

> * Contacts
> * Messaging
> * Telephony

dropped in CfC last week, request will be made to relicense to allow to 
go to CG or elsewhere (anything in a CG can be done elsewhere)

> * TCP UDP Sockets

Some WG may want to pick this up, though it seems a real SysApps type of 
thing - hard to imagine how you use this in a Web Browser unless there 
is a change in the security model to allow native app like trust of a 
Web page.

> * Runtime & Security Model - Discontinued in favor of App Lifecycle

already dropped and no one has wanted to follow up on it, so nothing 
happens with this - no relicensing for moving to CG
> * App Manifest - WebApps

already moved, so nothing more to do.

> If there is consensus on the fate/plan of Phase 2 specs 
> <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/#future>, please provide that data too.

The WG didn't start phase 2, no FPWDs.  Web Bluetooth is already in a CG 
for an API for the Web security model.  (Outside SysApps, but NFC WG has 
the same thing - a new CG for an API that can be used in Web Browsers, 
rather than the standalone, native like SysApps model)
> -Thanks, AB
Received on Monday, 30 March 2015 18:19:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 30 March 2015 18:19:45 UTC