Given that we have a day left to respond to this poll, we should begin writing up at least a draft answer with known facts that we can iterate on as we get more information.
Rough draft WebVR proposed charter response points for consideration: 1. Timing is good. We think WebVR is ready for a WG to formally standardize it. [Our very action of shipping a WebVR feature publicly (without pref) speaks louder than any words on any email lists (including this one) and communicates that we think WebVR is ready for adoption on the open web (if that were not true, we should not be shipping it publicly, but my understanding is that that decision has been made.), and thus ready for rapid standardization among implementers.] 2. WG charter details bad. We have strong concerns about the proposed WG charter as written, including apparent disconnects with the CG, and in particular failure to involve implementers (e.g. browser vendors and major hardware providers). 3. Conclusion: Formal objection. Charter bad, needs to be withdrawn, be rewritten in an open dialog with the CG, such that there is at least rough consensus with the CG on scope, chairs, and other details. I believe these points reflect our actions and what Lars has communicated below: On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Lars Bergstrom <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll follow up more with the chairs of the community group (they just had a > face to face earlier this week and I presume it came up). The last bit that > I heard is consistent with what Dan mentioned - the concern is not around > standardization Thanks for the clarification, thus point 1. > but that neither the chairs nor the browser vendors nor the > major hardware providers were consulted publicly in the creation of a > proposal to transition to a working group: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webvr/2017Jul/0083.html Thus point 2. > Based on that thread, I'd expect the proposal to be withdrawn or - as Dan > mentioned - things adjusted to involve the the current spec contributors. Thus point 3 - we should openly advocate for the proposed charter to be withdrawn and rewritten accordingly. > I'll try to get on the phone with folks to find out more and get something > to dbaron by tomorrow. I'm not familiar with the inner workings of the W3C, > but I find it hard to imagine how things will go well with none of the > current spec contributors involved. Short answer: historically when W3C WGs move forward without strong implementer participation, they have very low chances of success, high chances of failure, and especially of damaging good will in relevant communities. Your concerns are merited. More information definitely appreciated to help iterate on our response. Thanks Lars, Tantek > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Daniel Veditz <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:51 PM, L. David Baron <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I still think opposing this charter because the group should still >>> > be in the incubation phase would be inconsistent with our shipping >>> > and promotion of WebVR. >>> > >>> >>> I agree that would be exceptionally odd and require a well reasoned >>> argument about why formal standardization was inappropriate. >>> >> >> This puzzles me as well. Lars, can you explain what the argument against >> standardization of a shipping feature is? >> >> -Ekr >> >> >>> >>> I'm troubled that the members of the incubation group seem to feel that >>> chairs are being imposed on them who have been less involved (or >>> uninvolved?) with leading the feature to the point it's gotten so far. But >>> I don't understand the politics of that or whether we could or should get >>> involved on that point. >>> >>> -Dan Veditz >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dev-platform mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
