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

On March 25, 2015 at 4:24:26 PM, Wayne Carr (wayne.carr@linux.intel.com) 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


Moving any spec I've edited to a CG is ok with me :)

Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 21:17:12 UTC