Informal CfC on views on allowing abandoned SysApps specs to move to a community group

The SysApps WG charter expired 1 October 2014[1].  One of the two Chairs 
left the WG [2] in early December and the other changed employers (in a 
WG under an active charter it would be expected that there would be a 
renomination or new Chair when that happens).  Back on 14 December 2014, 
after the Charter expired, I made a request for a CfC to support 
relicensing abandoned specs from SysApps WG [3].  That wasn't responded 
to. I'm going to do an informal CfC myself now, asking for WG members 
opinion about the following.  (We may not have active WG or a Chair at 
this point, but we do have the relevant people on this list whose 
opinions the Director and Advisory Committee would want later in a 
request to move specs to a Community Group).

There is a W3C policy that allows relicensing abandoned specs [4] so 
they can be moved to a Community Group (or worked on elsewhere).  That 
process calls for seeking the opinion of the WG.  It also applies only 
to specs abandoned by the WG and that had reached FPWD (so WDs not 
editor's drafts before FPWD).  The specs below were contributed 
initially by Intel Corporation.  We still have interest in developing 
them, but it is pointless to try to do that in the SysApps WG without 
the possibility of two implementations.  We see no possibility for the 
SysApps WG to successfully recharter in its present form and we don't 
think these specs would be included in that if it changed.  (There are 3 
other specs beyond FPWD that this could be done for, but this CFC is 
limited only to the ones that came from Intel.  There could be other 
informal CfC's for the others.)

The purpose of this informal CfC is to determine consensus on the 
following proposition:
The members of the SysApps WG support permanently stopping SysApps work 
on the following specs: Contacts, Messaging, Telephony.   Furthermore, 
the members do not object to moving these specs to Community Groups 
where other Community Groups or anyone outside W3C would be allowed to 
take and develop them (as allowed by the Community Group Contributor 
License Agreement).

Please respond be end of day 27 March 2014 (anywhere).  As usual in a 
CfC, silence is considered agreement with the proposal, but a direct 
response is preferred.  It would be very helpful to express any objection.

What we're looking for here is responses from the group that the W3C 
Director and Advisory Committee  could take into account in considering 
whether to allow the relicensing necessary to move the specs into a 
Community Group.  (so no need for anyone to judge consensus - they can 
look at the CfC and see judge whether there was consensus themselves. 
Specifically, if anyone responds to this that they don't want these 
specs moved to a Community Group, that would certainly be considered in 
a later decision (by the Advisory Committee and W3C Director, not this 
WG).  We would also welcome responses to this list from previous member 
who quit the WG. (We'll likely quit ourselves fairly soon.)


Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 22:33:39 UTC