OK, here's a draft of Tantek's points in a form that I think we could submit. Please let me know if there are things you think I should change:
----- We support the idea of bringing WebVR into a working group at the W3C. However, bringing work that has been incubating in a community group (CG) into a working group (WG) requires more interaction with the existing CG than has happened here. While we are aware that not all members of the CG support moving the work into a WG, we would like to see the process of developing a WG charter involve the existing CG more, and try to find an acceptable compromise that allows the formation of a WG. We're objecting because we believe this charter should be redrafted in a dialog with the existing Co mmunity Group, in order to build consensus there on the scope of the working group, its relationship to the community group, and other details. ----- -David On Friday 2017-08-18 10:17 -0500, Lars Bergstrom wrote: > 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 รelik <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 Charter bad, needs to be withdrawn, 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 > > -- ๐ L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ ๐ ๐ข Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ ๐ Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
