Re: CFC

> On 25 May 2016, at 3:54 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hello WP,
> 
> At the AC meeting in March 2016 the WP co-chairs indicated that the
> Packaging on the Web specification [1] would benefit from further incubation
> before continuing along the Recommendation track.
> 
> This is a CFC to publish Packaging on the Web as a W3C note.

We generally "gut" Notes to avoid confusion and prevent implementation. It might be fine to gut it if there is no implementer interest (particularly give Service Workers and HTTP2). 

But then, we should not use "incubation" as a euphemism for "no one is going to implement this and we don't want it" as it demeans the work of groups like the WIGC - that actually do incubation. At least, I will strongly object to the use of that word if your intention is to kill the spec. 

So, what then is the real reason for WP terminating work on the spec? Can we see the minutes from the rationale given to the AC? 

> If the CFC
> passes, the transition of the specification to note status will be done
> within the current WP WG charter.
> 
> If you have comments or concerns about this CFC, please send them to
> public-webapps@w3.org no later than 2nd June 2016. Positive responses are
> preferred and encouraged, but silence will be considered as agreement with
> the proposal.

Is the plan then to transition it to the WICG for incubation? If so, we can just take it and there is no need for process - but we only take it if there is actual implementer interest and not if it's not going anywhere. 

> 
> Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team.
> [1] http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/ 
> 
> -- 
> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2016 23:52:43 UTC