About the packaging spec Re: CFC

Hi Marcos,

On Wed, 25 May 2016 00:52:07 +0100, <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote:

>> On 25 May 2016, at 3:54 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:

>> At the AC meeting in March 2016 the WP co-chairs indicated that the
>> Packaging on the Web specification [1] would benefit from further  
>> incubation before continuing along the Recommendation track.
>>
>> This is a CFC to publish Packaging on the Web as a W3C note.
>
> We generally "gut" Notes to avoid confusion and prevent implementation.  
> It might be fine to gut it if there is no implementer interest  
> (particularly give Service Workers and HTTP2).
>
> But then, we should not use "incubation" as a euphemism for "no one is  
> going to implement this and we don't want it" as it demeans the work of  
> groups like the WIGC - that actually do incubation.

I agree that "We're trying to kill this work" should not be expressed as
"needs incubation". That's not the situation.

> At least, I will strongly object to the use of that word if your
> intention is to kill the spec.

It is not our intention to kill the spec, however we think that the
current approach should be sidelined - and if people are interested,
incubated - to make way for a shorter-term approach we believe will get
more traction as an interim solution.

> So, what then is the real reason for WP terminating work on the spec?

You're right that we do not think the spec is going to go forward in a
hurry. It has several nice features, and we presume the TAG wasn't just
whistling in the wind, so incubating it seems a reasonable thing to do.

There is a lot of implementation of packaging mechanisms that are
basically "zip and a manifest". We expect that someone will propose
something based on that and that it can get traction - much like the
previous Recommendation along those lines, in which you were heavily
involved.

In the meantime, moving the current draft specification aside allows us to
start a new one, which clarifies the IPR situation - something we
understand is a concern for some members, even if only so they don't have
to get a legal clearance because we're basically rehashing old technology
with an established recommendation behind it, in a new syntax.

> Can we see the minutes from the rationale given to the AC?

I doubt it. They are confidential and the work to get them approved for
release - asking everyone involved, given that they spoke in the
expectation of confidentiality - seems excessive for the relative value.
Since you personally have access, you're welcome to look and see if you
think it's worth the effort.

>> If the CFC passes, the transition of the specification to note status
>> will be done within the current WP WG charter.
>>
>> If you have comments or concerns about this CFC, please send them to
>> public-webapps@w3.org no later than 2nd June 2016. Positive responses  
>> are preferred and encouraged, but silence will be considered as
>> agreement with the proposal.
>
> Is the plan then to transition it to the WICG for incubation? If so, we  
> can just take it and there is no need for process - but we only take it  
> if there is actual implementer interest and not if it's not going  
> anywhere.

That's a judgement call. *I* do not know of implementor interest.

cheers

>> Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team.
>> [1] http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/
>>
>> --
>> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
    chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:25:15 UTC