Web Platform Working Group Revised Charter Approved: join the Web Platform Working Group (Call for Participation)

Dear members of the Web Platform Working Group,

I'm relaying the Call for Participation to the Working Group's primarily 
public mailing list, to notify the group of its Revised Charter Approved.

Best regards,

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:  Web Platform Working Group Revised Charter Approved: join the 
Web Platform Working Group (Call for Participation)
Date:  Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:10:06 +0800
From:  Xueyuan Jia <xueyuan@w3.org>
To:  w3c-ac-members@w3.org
Cc:  chairs@w3.org

Dear Advisory Committee Representative,

The Director is pleased to announce the re-charter of the Web Platform
Working Group:

The revised charter extends the group through 30 March 2018. The major
changes are one new deliverable (Microdata, minus the Microdata DOM
API), some removed deliverables (URL, XmlHttpRequest-1 and Streams),
other deliverables moved to a list of potential deliverables through
incubation (see Results of the Call for Review below).

Please use the following form to join or re-join the group; the form
will also instruct you how to nominate participants:

The Working Group chairs are LĂ©onie Watson (The Paciello Group), Adrian
Bateman (Microsoft) and Charles McCathie Nevile (Yandex). The Team
Contacts are Xiaoqian Wu and Yves Lafon for a total of 1.0 FTE.

More information about the Working Group can be found at its homepage:

Results of the Call for Review

We called for review on 2 September 2016:

Thanks to the 28 Members who provided input:

The following comments were received during the review period:

* The FindText API should be solely owned by the Web Annotation WG [1][2][3]
This was a Formal Objection from Microsoft [1]. The FindText API was
removed from the charter, and the Formal Objection was withdrawn [4].

* Microdata should not be added back to the charter [3][5]
This is a Formal Objection from Mozilla Foundation [5].
Following the concern of several members, we decided to remove the
Microdata DOM API, as it never caught on, but to keep the syntax, as it
is in use, and other members expressed direct interest in pursuing this.
Unlike the Microdata API, the main implementors of this new
specification will not be browsers, but existing metadata validators.

The size of the data sets using micro format should be enough to
consider that Microdata already passed the incubation stage, like RDFa,
Microformat and JSON-LD. (See [6]). Hence the decision to keep this item
in the list of deliverable.

* Mandatory Incubation [7]
The issue of mandatory incubation was raised as it was felt as being a
potential source of frictions and conflicts. The incubation process in
the Web Platform WG is still an experiment and one year of
experimentation is not long enough to draw conclusions. This
experimentation needs to continue and be evaluated and is not a work
mode that can be generalized to all Working Groups. The validity of this
model and its applicability to other groups that share similar work mode
will be discussed over time under the auspices of the Strategy
Management [8].

* Relationship with the WhatWG [7]
The current goal is still to try to work in cooperation with the WhatWG
as much as possible and this is one of the specific tasks of the
Community Management [9]. The issue about relationship with the WhatWG
work has been raised as a followup to a GitHub issue during the work on
the charter [10]. Until we get more successful in engaging with the
WHATWG, the Working Group and the charter must set the goals based on
how we are currently engaging with them.

* Stability of the Potential Deliverable list [5][11]
The viability of specifications listed in the Potential Deliverable list
was questioned. The deliverables listed here were Recommendation Track
documents that never made decent progress during the life of the Working
Group. As such their inclusion in that list show areas where the AC
expressed interest in the past, but needs to go through the incubation
process to become chartered deliverables again. This was clarified in
the proposed charter [12].

* HTML-AAM [2]
Following discussions between the ARIA and Web Platform WGs [13], it was
decided that it would be a deliverable under the sole responsibility of
the Web Platform WG.

* Canvas [2]
Yandex raised the issue that Canvas would be better handled in a group
dedicated to Graphics. Until we have a better way to split
specifications in relevant buckets, it was decided to keep Canvas under
the auspices of the Web Platform WG, an explicit liaison with the SVG
Working Group on this topic was already in the charter.

* Definition of the normative Web Platform [3][14]
The Web Platform Working Group is working on a Note that references all
HTML extension specifications:
There are open issues regarding missing documents:
Note that the document will only list HTML extensions and is not meant
to list all extensions to the Web Platform. The Web Platform Working
Group is one of many Groups engaged in defining extensions to the Web
Platform and, despite its name, is not meant to encompass the overall
Web Platform architecture.

* Operating Procedure [15]
The issue was raised that with a Working Group so large with so many
deliverable, it was difficult to keep track of important decisions. The
Working Group Work Mode document [16] was clarified with the following
paragraph on the use of Call for Consensus:

     CFCs are conducted on GitHub. An issue is opened on the repo for the
     specification, and a notification email sent to
     public-webapps@w3.org to let the WG know. The GitHub issue and email
     will have a subject line that starts with "CFC" and includes both
     the subject of the CFC and the closing date.

* Scope too broad, impossible to work on only one specification [17]
The issue was raised that some companies have issues reviewing all the
Calls for Exclusion pertaining to this Working Group. We tried in the
past to split the Group (it was discussed during an AC Meeting, as
explained in [18]), but nothing conclusive came out, as splitting the
group in coherent parts is very difficult. Still, we definitely should
find a way to allow Members who are interested in a technology to be
able to contribute to it. Expect discussion with the Strategy Lead in
the near future to try to find a solution to this issue.

Several editorial comments were received and incorporated in the charter

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2016Sep/0429.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2016Sep/0477.html
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2016Sep/0498.html
[4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2016Oct/0346.html
[5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2016Sep/0550.html
[6] http://www.webdatacommons.org/structureddata/#results-2015-1
[7] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2016JulSep/0135.html
[8] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/2016-reorg.html#h.xpqekchiu1h
[9] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/2016-reorg.html#communitymngt
[10] https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/112
[11] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2016Sep/0512.html
[12] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/webplatform-charter.html
[13] https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/133
[14] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2016Sep/0531.html
[15] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2016Sep/0547.html
[16] https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/WorkMode.md
[17] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2016Sep/0527.html
[19] https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/commits/gh-pages/group-charter.html

This announcement follows section 7.1.2 of the W3C Process Document:

and the Call for Participation follows section 5.2.4 of the W3C Process

Thank you,

For Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director,
Philippe Le Hegaret, Project Management Lead,
Xiaoqian Wu and Yves Lafon, Web Platform Working Group Team Contacts;
Xueyuan Jia, W3C Marketing & Communications

Received on Monday, 31 October 2016 15:25:02 UTC