I won't be doing this last CfC Re: status of App URI, Scheduler API, and TCP UDP Sockets

I was going to do another CFC on opinions on relicensing the other 3 
specs that had reached FPWD - just in case anyone later wanted to ask to 
move them to a CG -- because the WG may not be around to be asked ... 
but, we've decided to leave the WG now so I won't do that one.  The text 
I was going to use is below.

On 2015-03-26 12:48, Wayne Carr wrote:
>
> There are 6 specs that reached First Public Working Draft (so formally 
> on the REC track and eligible for relicensing to move to a CG). The 
> CfC that ends at the end of the day Friday is for: Contacts, 
> Messaging, Telephony.  Those seemed obvious and we use those, so we 
> asked only for those.
>
> There are 3 ofter specs that have reached FPWD (so eligible to ask for 
> relicensing to move to a Community Group). I don't want to start 
> another CfC on stopping work on specs this week to avoid confusion in 
> the CfC that's about to end Friday.  The CfC for these I think would 
> need to be worded differently because some look like they could be in 
> scope for the WebApps WG and service workers.
> App URI <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/app-uri/>
> Scheduler API <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-task-scheduler-20141202/>
> TCP UDP Sockets <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-tcp-udp-sockets-20141202/>
>
> Scheduler API looks like it would fit in Web Apps with Service 
> Workers.  A CfC we could do next week could be worded like this (not 
> doing the CfC now - but would someone want different wording?):
>
> NOT A CFC NOW - JUST WHAT THE WORDING COULD BE - WOULD DO THIS CFC 
> NEXT WEEK
> The purpose of this informal CfC is to determine consensus on the 
> following proposition:
> The members of the SysApps WG support stopping SysApps  WG work on the 
> following specs: App URI <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/app-uri/>, 
> Scheduler API <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-task-scheduler-20141202/>, 
> TCP UDP Sockets 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-tcp-udp-sockets-20141202/>. 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).  However, if someone later asks the Director to 
> allow these specifications to be moved, we expect that it is first be 
> determined if Web Apps would like to pick the specs up.
>