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

Since we don't have a Chair or Charter, I won't try to state the 
consensus.  But, there were no objections and all of the Editors 
responded positively.


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).

Note: the word "permanently" wasn't intended to mean a pledge never 
again to ever work on this.  It meant the WG was dropping it with no 
plans to continue work later, so not just pausing it for a while but 
really dropping it.  If this WG continued, it could pick it up again 
some day, just like for any WG Note dropping work on a spec. That was 
clarified on the mail list.

Total results from SysApps WG participants so far (completes end of day 
27 March):
Positive: 7 (links below)
Negative: 0

All Editors responded to the SysApps WG list and supported the CfC.

**** Editors response to CfC - relicensing process asks for both WG and 
editor input ****
** Contacts API
    Eduardo Fullea, Telefonica [4]  yes
    Jose M. Cantera, Telefonica [6] yes
    Christophe Dumez, Intel Corporation, later Samsung Electronics, Co., 
Ltd [2] yes

** Messaging API
      Eduardo Fullea, Telefonica [4] yes
     Jose M. Cantera, Telefonica [6] yes
     Zoltan Kis, Intel [3] yes

** Web Telephony API
      Marcos Cáceres, Mozilla [5] yes
     José M. Cantera, Telefónica [6] yes
     Eduardo Fullea, Telefónica [4] yes
     Zoltan Kis, Intel [3] yes

**** Others who were not editors ****
Charles McCathie Nevile [7] yes
Claes Nillson [8] yes


CfC and responses - note that all are not in the same thread - some were 
forwarded
[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] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Mar/0006.html
[5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Mar/0007.html
[6] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Mar/0019.html
[7] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Mar/0002.html, 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Mar/0013.html
[8] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2015Mar/0008.html

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
>