- From: Poussa, Sakari <sakari.poussa@intel.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:57:06 +0000
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
- CC: "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Adam, My answer (list of APIs) was targeting the 'begin working on immediately', i.e., the first group. -sakari On 6/1/12 2:48 PM, "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >Wayne, > >As I mentioned in my original message on this topic, I'd like to >roughly divide the deliverables in the charter into two groups: the >group that we'll begin working on immediately and the group that we'll >start working on once we build up some momentum. It's sounds like >you're most interested in the scope and IPR commitments, which >encompass the union of these groups. When I'm asking folks what >they'd like to work on first, I'm more concerned with the first group. > >Adam > > >On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com> wrote: >> Those are suggestions for how the WG should get started. Separate from >>the charter, it may be useful to think about how the WG should start, >>but that is up to the people who join the actual WG and shouldn't be >>dictated by the charter. >> >> What we need to decide in the charter is the scope of what the WG is >>allowed to work on for that first 2 years. If it isn't in the scope of >>the charter, they can't work on it, and no one has any licensing >>commitments related to it. So, while we don't want to include things no >>one wants to work on, we also don't want to over constrain the WG before >>we even know who they are. >> >> People (not just in this mail list) have asked for those who want the >>WG to start to demonstrate resource commitments. That's what we're >>doing with our email on editors. We hope others who've written specs >>like these will also offer editors. Multiple editors from multiple orgs >>would be good for this consolidation type effort. >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com] >>>Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 2:01 PM >>>To: Carr, Wayne >>>Cc: public-sysapps@w3.org >>>Subject: Re: System Level API spec editors >>> >>>I think we agree that we would like to eventually produce >>>specifications for many >>>(if not all) of the things you've listed. The issue is more what we'll >>>have the >>>bandwidth to achieve in the near term. >>> >>>Spamming the working group with FPWDs isn't a path to success. A path >>>to >>>success is first agreeing on basic things like whether the APIs ought >>>to be >>>synchronous or asynchronous or whether we ought to use callbacks or >>>events, >>>etc. To have those discussions, we only need a handful of >>>representative specs in >>>front of us to work through. Once we've got some momentum, then we can >>>scale up and work on more specs. >>> >>>Adam >>> >>> >>>On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com> >>>wrote: >>>> There are a bunch of systems that already have similar, but >>>>incompatible APIs >>>for these things. What we see as the purpose of the proposed WG is to >>>provide a >>>forum where at least some of those can be consolidated into a standard >>>set of >>>APIs. We don't see it as a bad thing that that would happen with a lot >>>of >>>specs. That's really the point. >>>> >>>> Doing it with one or two specs would be fairly useless. Intel would >>>>not support >>>vastly cutting back this proposed WG. >>>> >>>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com] >>>>>Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 1:47 PM >>>>>To: Poussa, Sakari >>>>>Cc: Carr, Wayne; public-sysapps@w3.org >>>>>Subject: Re: System Level API spec editors >>>>> >>>>>Thanks Sakari. Three seems much more achievable than 12. :) >>>>> >>>>>I'm hoping to collate all the information folks have sent to the list >>>>>and to propose an updated draft of the charter on Monday. >>>>> >>>>>Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Poussa, Sakari >>>>><sakari.poussa@intel.com> >>>wrote: >>>>>> Hey, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the top ones from that list would be: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Bluetooth >>>>>> 2. Telephony >>>>>> 3. Power / Resource management >>>>>> >>>>>> You asked 1 or 2, I gave you 3 - sorry about that ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> For Bluetooth, I think we have a reasonable API in Tizen. At least >>>>>> we spent a lot of time with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> For Telephony, while quite complex this would put the security model >>>>>> in test. >>>>>> >>>>>> For power/resource, this should be simple enough to get things going >>>>>> and agree on style, etc. topics. >>>>>> >>>>>> -sakari >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/1/12 1:33 PM, "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>This list is too long. Even if we find a dozen qualified editors to >>>>>>>work on these drafts, the working group won't have the bandwidth to >>>>>>>review that many specs at the start, and the result will be >>>>>>>low-quality specs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Do you have one or two of these that are most important to work on >>>>>>>first? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Adam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com> >>>wrote: >>>>>>>> We will need to go through our usual (very long) approval process >>>>>>>> to participate in the WG, but we can make a provisional offer to >>>>>>>> edit the following specs. This is an offer for after we get our >>>>>>>> internal >>>>>>>> (Legal) approval and the WG is approved and starts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mozilla indicted they may offer editors for some, so we would be >>>>>>>>offering to join them on any that overlap ¡© and we hope others >>>>>>>>offer editors for these or the other specs too. We assume the WG >>>>>>>>will choose editors and that specs will have multiple editors. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Specs we would offer editors for (we©öre also still looking at >>>>>>>>another): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sensors API. Examples: No sample draft, but previous work was done >>>>>>>>in DAP, likely Web Intents based and including sensors in local >>>>>>>>network. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Network Interface API. Examples: B2G Mobile Connection, B2G WiFi >>>>>>>> Information. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Secure Elements API. Examples: none >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alarm API. Examples: Tizen Alarm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Calendar API. Examples: B2G Calendar, Tizen Calendar >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Contacts API. Examples: Tizen Contacts, B2G Contacts >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NFC API. B2G Web NFC, Tizen NFC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Accounts API. Examples: none >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bluetooth API. Examples: Tizen Bluetooth, B2G Web Bluetooth >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Media Storage API. Example: Tizen Media Content. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Power Management API. Example: B2G Power Management >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Resource Lock API. Example: B2G Resource Lock >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Telephony API. Examples: B2G Web Telephony, Tizen Call >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 21:57:38 UTC