W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > March 2015

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

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:50:52 -0700
Message-ID: <5511C01C.1010300@linux.intel.com>
To: public-sysapps@w3.org
The way this CfC will be used is the W3C Director and Advisory Committee 
will consider it in judging the view of members of the SysApps WG and 
also, specifically, the Editors (whether still in the WG or not and 
whether still working for their employers while working on the spec or 
not).  I won't try to assess consensus.  We just need the responses and 
the Director and AC would consider those directly.  Here are the results 
to date.  I'll repeat that when its over after Friday.

Total results from SysApps WG participants so far (completes end of day 
27 March):
Positive: 4
Negative: 0

Editors response to CfC in brackets if there is one:
** Contacts API
    Eduardo Fullea, Telefonica [4]
    Jose M. Cantera, Telefonica
    Christophe Dumez, Intel Corporation, later Samsung Electronics, Co., 
Ltd [2]

** Messaging API
      Eduardo Fullea, Telefonica [4]
     Jose M. Cantera, Telefonica
     Zoltan Kis, Intel [1]

** Web Telephony API
      Marcos Cáceres, Mozilla
     José M. Cantera, Telefónica
     Eduardo Fullea, Telefónica [4]
     Zoltan Kis, Intel [1]

[0] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Mar/0001.html
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Mar/0002.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Mar/0003.html
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Mar/0004.html
[4] sent to WG list in mail, but not in archive yet (?)

On 2015-03-19 15:33, Wayne Carr wrote:
> 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.)
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/09/sysapps-wg-charter
> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2014Dec/0000.html
> [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2014Dec/0005.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2014/12/relicense.html
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 19:51:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 1 July 2021 16:04:47 UTC