Update - State of SysApps specs - any interest in continuing work on any of these?

Here is an update of the status on the phase 1 specs, incorporating 
feeback from the CfC to close SysApps WG led to discussions (which led 
to discussions in other WGs on a couple of the specs).
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Apr/0026.html

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 were worked on

  *      5 spec had work was stopped by WG: 1 moved to WebApps, 1
    abandoned and no interest in it, 3 have current request to Director
    in progress to relicense to allow them to move outside WGs to CG
  *      2 were considered targets for possibly moving to Web Apps as
    Service Worker extensions: for 1 of those, a different approach is
    being developed that will try to get into WebApps so the SysApps
    draft is unlikely to be used and the other had objections in WebApps
    to moving there last year (but could try again or could go outside).
  *      1 likely should have work stopped when it because clear SysApps
    wasn't going to produce apps because it depends on SysApps style
    apps and the runtime/security work that has stopped
  *      1 has editor interest, but no agreement on working on it
    anywhere in W3C WGs.  Consensus seems to be it should be in CG if
    someone wants to develop it.  Depended on SysApps security model
    that was not developed and not clear how to do it in Web security
    model.  So, seems key problems need to be solved before a WG could
    work on it.

Need WG opinion on allowing relicensing to make move to CG possible for 
a later request.  It looks like TCP UDP Sockets is the only one left 
where there is interest.  If someone wants to do a CfC for that one, 
here is an example of the request for the other 3 specs.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Apr/0028.html

* 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 -- 
CfC to see if any objections -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Apr/0028.html -- 
*request to Director to relicense so can move out of WG to CG or elsewhere*
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 -- so nothing 
to do in SysApps

5. App Manifest <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/manifest/>
*Moved to Web Apps WG* -- so nothing to do in SysApps

* 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.
*Feedback*: Feedback on SysApps list is it is similar to BackgroundSync which is being developed with the idea of moving that to WebApps. That looks like it includes Task Scheduler (and more), so may not need to specifically move Task Scheduler since this other effort is underway and has a draft.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Apr/0018.html

7. App Lifecycle <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/app-lifecycle/>
*Published as TR*: NO
*Last Editor's update*: 16 May 2014
*Editor**s*: 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.
**Feedback*: Chaals said was considered for Web Apps WG last year, but rejected.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Apr/0027.html

   * 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
*Feedback*: Discusion on SysApps WG, DAP WG, and WebApps WG mail lists.  Seems like skepticism on whether this can be redesigned for use in Browsers.  (but I think some is only in particular WG's list). Some work being explored in WHATWG.  Relied on SysApps creating a security model and that was abandoned.  It would have to create its own. The feedback appeared to be that there wasn't support for working on this now in a WG,  Possibly better in CG until it figures out an acceptable security approach.  This would need to have a CfC to determine if there are any objections to a later request to the Director to relicense to allow moving to a CG or elsewhere.
The thread was posted to 3 WG lists - some posts only on particular WG lists
See thread starting at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Apr/0001.html  <See%20thread%20starting%20at%20https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Apr/0001.html>  (22 posts)
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2015Apr/0000.html  (22 posts)
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015AprJun/0001.html  (29 posts)


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.
*Feedback*: 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.