State of SysApps specs

Here's some information on the state of the SysApps specs from phase 1.  
This isn't official - just what I gathered this morning.
SysApps Phase 1 spec roadmap http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/#roadmap

Summary:
9 phase 1 specs
     5 work stopped by WG, either moved, abandoned or have current 
request to Director in progress to relicense to allow them to move to a CG
     2 are targets for possibly moving to Web Apps as Service Worker 
extensions (need to explore that)
     1 likely should have work stopped because it depends on SysApps 
style apps and the runtime/security work has stopped, App URI
     1 not clear, possibly redirected to a different approach, unknown 
how to handle security

On being able to move specs to a Community Group:  When someone asks to 
move an abandoned spec to a Community Group part of the procedure is 
finding out what the WG things.  If someone thinks they may want to move 
something that doesn't have a likely home in another WG, it may be a 
good idea to do the CfC for it.

* Moved or Abandoned,  WG stopped work*
  ++ request to Director to relicense to allow work elsewhere like in a 
CG is underway for Contacts, Messaging, and Telephony ++
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Mar/0020.html ++
1. Contacts <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/contacts-manager-api/>
2. Messaging <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/messaging/>
3. Telephony <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/telephony/>

4. Runtime and Security Model <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/runtime/>
Approach abandoned by WG while WG was still functioning

5. App Manifest <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/manifest/>
Moved to Web Apps WG

* Service Worker related - possible move to Web Apps or CG? *

6. Task Scheduler API <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/web-alarms/>
Published as TR: Yes
Last Editor's update: 13 October 2014
Editors: Mahesh Kulkarni, Samsung Electronics; Former Editors: Christophe Dumez, representing Intel and Samsung Electronics (Until January 2013 and mid-August 2014, respectively)
Possible Move: possible extension to Service Workers in WebApps WG
Interest: Intel maybe, if it moved to Web Apps or a CG - just starting to consider
Notes: This would let a Service Worker be awakened at a particular time and would have an event delivered to it. As Service Workers become more capable this could be useful, which sounds in the Web Apps scope for Service Workers.  Likely should move there or if they won't have it, a CG to at least preserve it until it becomes interesting to WebApps.

7. App Lifecycle <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/app-lifecycle/>
Published as TR: NO
Last Editor's update: 16 May 2014
Editors: Anssi Kostiainen, Intel; Kenneth Rohde Christiansen, Intel
Possible Move: possible extension to Service Workers in WebApps WG
Interest: Intel maybe, if it moved to Web Apps or a CG - just starting to consider
Notes: seems in Web Apps Service Worker scope.

* Other specs, not clear if a target WG *

8. TCP UDP Sockets<http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-tcp-udp-sockets-20141202/>
Published as TR: Yes
Last Editor's update: 30 March 2015
Editors: Claes Nilsson, Sony Mobile
Possible Move: Not clear, CG seems most likely (question: should WG do a CfC saying they don't object to this being relicensed to be able to move to a CG?)
Interest: Claes (Sony Mobile) wants to continue as Editor
Notes: Some skepticism on whether this can be redesigned for use in Browsers. See thread starting athttps://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Apr/0001.html  . Some work being explored in WHATWG.  This relied on SysApps creating a security model and that was abandoned.  It would have to create its own.  Possibly better in CG until it figures out an acceptable security approach?

9. App URI <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/app-uri/>
Published as TR: Yes
Last Editor's update: 16 May 2014
Editors: Marcos Caceres, Mozilla Corporation
Possible Move: none now (question: should WG do a CfC saying they don't object to this being relicensed to be able to move to a CG?)
Interest: Doesn't appear to be any now.
Notes: No use for this outside packaged applications, and that isn't moving forward in W3C at this time.  So, no point in continuing this until there was some target where it would be used.








Published as TR: NO
Last Editor's update:
Editors:
Possible Move:
Interest:
Notes:


Published as TR: NO
Last Editor's update:
Editors:
Possible Move:
Interest:
Notes:


Published as TR: NO
Last Editor's update:
Editors:
Possible Move:
Interest:
Notes: