Thanks, Tantek! I like this response. I have not been able to reach google/microsoft but will inform them of this intention.
To reinforce point #1, I'd add that WebVR is currently under TAG review (see https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/185 ). Standardization is definitely the intended path here. - Lars On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Çelik <tan...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote: > 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 Charter bad, needs to be withdrawn, 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 <larsb...@mozilla.com> > 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 Based on that thread, I'd expect the proposal to be withdrawn or - as Dan 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 <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Daniel Veditz <dved...@mozilla.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:51 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> > >>> 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 > >>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > >>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > >>> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > dev-platform mailing list > > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
