Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel
For the record: Where the discussion takes place is of little importance to me and mozilla. It would make sense to me to do it here, but I'm just as happy to discuss it elsewhere too. So I don't "prefer" it one place or the other. / Jonas
RE: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel
Inline... > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Maciej Stachowiak > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:44 AM > To: Doug Schepers > Cc: Web API public > Subject: Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel > > > > On Jun 3, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Doug Schepers wrote: > > > Hi, Maciej- > > > > Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 6/3/08 1:53 PM): > >> At this point I am really confused about where to discuss > >> geolocation APIs, and I would rather not have it bounce back and > >> forth. Maybe we should just wait until the chartering process > >> reaches its conclusion. > > > > There's nothing to be confused about. Regardless where the > > deliverable ends up, whether in the proposed Geolocation WG, or the > > WebApps WG, the *discussion list* will be the same: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Well I'm pretty interested in coordinating with Google, Opera and > Mozilla on this and it seems like they were interested in keeping the > work and discussion here. It's true that you announced a new mailing > list but it doesn't seem like anyone here asked for it. If it's going > to be a mailing list for the WebApps WG, then maybe it would be good > for the WG to discuss whether we want a separate list.[Sunava Dutta] [Sunava Dutta] I think Doug's point is that there are more parties (and industries) that are affected by this. Of course, working with other browser vendors AND other invested parties is important. > > > I would strongly encourage folks to join and start discussions now, > > rather than waiting. A chartering period, with the review from W3C > > Management and the Advisory Committee, takes at least 6 weeks, and > > that doesn't include the time have preliminary discussions about it > > and to write the charter. Hixie indicated that Google did not want > > to wait even 2 weeks, and I agree that keeping momentum is a high > > priority. Naturally, if Apple wants to wait until the chartering > > period is over, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't seem like a > > good use of time and energy. > > Well, I wasn't that confused about where disucussion should go until > you asked everyone to move discussion to a new list, when folks seemed > happy to have it here. [Sunava Dutta] I think Doug makes some very good points here. MSFT's stand based on the considerations that Doug has raised is that it should go to a new WG. There are teams here that do not need to be randomized with other WebApps conversations (that I participate in) but are nonetheless invested in GeoLocations. There is no additional burden for me to join a new list/WG and I'm glad to do so. > > > I sense that, for some reason, people are feeling territorial about > > this issue, and I'm not sure why. Can you please articulate what > > your concerns about this happening in WebApps are, rather than in a > > dedicated WG? > > I don't have any concerns about this being in WebApps. I think that > would be a great option. > > Regards, > Maciej > >
Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel
On Jun 3, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Doug Schepers wrote: Hi, Maciej- Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 6/3/08 1:53 PM): At this point I am really confused about where to discuss geolocation APIs, and I would rather not have it bounce back and forth. Maybe we should just wait until the chartering process reaches its conclusion. There's nothing to be confused about. Regardless where the deliverable ends up, whether in the proposed Geolocation WG, or the WebApps WG, the *discussion list* will be the same: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well I'm pretty interested in coordinating with Google, Opera and Mozilla on this and it seems like they were interested in keeping the work and discussion here. It's true that you announced a new mailing list but it doesn't seem like anyone here asked for it. If it's going to be a mailing list for the WebApps WG, then maybe it would be good for the WG to discuss whether we want a separate list. I would strongly encourage folks to join and start discussions now, rather than waiting. A chartering period, with the review from W3C Management and the Advisory Committee, takes at least 6 weeks, and that doesn't include the time have preliminary discussions about it and to write the charter. Hixie indicated that Google did not want to wait even 2 weeks, and I agree that keeping momentum is a high priority. Naturally, if Apple wants to wait until the chartering period is over, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't seem like a good use of time and energy. Well, I wasn't that confused about where disucussion should go until you asked everyone to move discussion to a new list, when folks seemed happy to have it here. I sense that, for some reason, people are feeling territorial about this issue, and I'm not sure why. Can you please articulate what your concerns about this happening in WebApps are, rather than in a dedicated WG? I don't have any concerns about this being in WebApps. I think that would be a great option. Regards, Maciej
Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel
Hi, Maciej- Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 6/3/08 1:53 PM): At this point I am really confused about where to discuss geolocation APIs, and I would rather not have it bounce back and forth. Maybe we should just wait until the chartering process reaches its conclusion. There's nothing to be confused about. Regardless where the deliverable ends up, whether in the proposed Geolocation WG, or the WebApps WG, the *discussion list* will be the same: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would strongly encourage folks to join and start discussions now, rather than waiting. A chartering period, with the review from W3C Management and the Advisory Committee, takes at least 6 weeks, and that doesn't include the time have preliminary discussions about it and to write the charter. Hixie indicated that Google did not want to wait even 2 weeks, and I agree that keeping momentum is a high priority. Naturally, if Apple wants to wait until the chartering period is over, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't seem like a good use of time and energy. I sense that, for some reason, people are feeling territorial about this issue, and I'm not sure why. Can you please articulate what your concerns about this happening in WebApps are, rather than in a dedicated WG? Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel
At this point I am really confused about where to discuss geolocation APIs, and I would rather not have it bounce back and forth. Maybe we should just wait until the chartering process reaches its conclusion. Regards, Maciej On Jun 3, 2008, at 7:24 AM, Doug Schepers wrote: Hi, Ian- Ian Hickson wrote (on 6/3/08 6:04 AM): On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Doug Schepers wrote: Matt Womer and I have started a new email list for discussing geolocation. The new list, public-geolocation [1], will be archived, and the intent is for it to be the public list for the planned Geolocation WG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/ Could we please keep the discussion to this group? It seems like most people on this group agree that the work should happen in this group, and it would be very confusing to have to move stuff back and forth, especially if the charter proposal for geo fails, as seems likely given several browser vendors have requested that it stay in this group. I appreciate that sentiment, and I see the browser vendors as a vital constituency in a successful Geolocation API specification. However, they are not the only stakeholders. To make this a truly open and universal API with broad uptake, we want to cultivate the participation of other industries in addition to browser vendors; camera manufacturers, GPS vendors, car makers, mobile phone operators, other standards bodies, etc. While some of them may have no direct interest in an API, they are likely to have insight into other aspects of geolocation that will inform an effective API. Many of them have shown interest in this in the past. From an IPR perspective, in order for a large company (or other organization) to get involved in the WG, they would have to do a wide-ranging (and lengthy and expensive) patent search. To join the WG, the company's patent search would have to cover *everything* that the WebApps WG is doing, not just geolocation. As you know, geolocation itself is a very mature technology, and there are hundreds of patents regarding its minutiae; if it turns out that the work we do ends up being contentious and spawning a PAG (Patent Advisory Group), it is better that it be isolated and not slow down the work going on in the rest of the WebApps WG. In addition to this, the vast majority of topics and emails on this list will not concern these other folks at all; it is rather overwhelming to get involved in such a high-traffic (and frankly contentious) list, especially if you aren't already in Web standards culture. So, regardless of where the actual deliverable ends up, it is therefore better to have a dedicated mailing list, for exactly the reason you state: it's confusing to have it move around, and keeping it on one list devoted to the topic will be much easier to track. If it happens that the Geolocation WG chartering fails, then the list can simply be attached to the WebApps WG. Easy. There is no additional burden on the WebApps WG participants to subscribe to one more list (or join one more WG), and there is a substantial burden on other interested parties in monitoring the public WebApps list. Seems like a clear choice to me. So, I'd respectfully ask that geolocation topics be conducted on public-geolocation, rather than slowing down the technical discussion by debating where we should be doing the work. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel
Hi, Folks- Doug Schepers wrote (on 6/3/08 10:24 AM): From an IPR perspective, in order for a large company (or other organization) to get involved in the WG, they would have to do a wide-ranging (and lengthy and expensive) patent search. To join the WG, the company's patent search would have to cover *everything* that the WebApps WG is doing, not just geolocation. Just to clarify, I'm talking about the WebApps WG here... obviously, to join the proposed Geolocation WG, a company would only have to do a patent search and PP commitment on *geolocation*, not everything in the WebApps WG. :) Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel
Hi, Ian- Ian Hickson wrote (on 6/3/08 6:04 AM): On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Doug Schepers wrote: Matt Womer and I have started a new email list for discussing geolocation. The new list, public-geolocation [1], will be archived, and the intent is for it to be the public list for the planned Geolocation WG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/ Could we please keep the discussion to this group? It seems like most people on this group agree that the work should happen in this group, and it would be very confusing to have to move stuff back and forth, especially if the charter proposal for geo fails, as seems likely given several browser vendors have requested that it stay in this group. I appreciate that sentiment, and I see the browser vendors as a vital constituency in a successful Geolocation API specification. However, they are not the only stakeholders. To make this a truly open and universal API with broad uptake, we want to cultivate the participation of other industries in addition to browser vendors; camera manufacturers, GPS vendors, car makers, mobile phone operators, other standards bodies, etc. While some of them may have no direct interest in an API, they are likely to have insight into other aspects of geolocation that will inform an effective API. Many of them have shown interest in this in the past. From an IPR perspective, in order for a large company (or other organization) to get involved in the WG, they would have to do a wide-ranging (and lengthy and expensive) patent search. To join the WG, the company's patent search would have to cover *everything* that the WebApps WG is doing, not just geolocation. As you know, geolocation itself is a very mature technology, and there are hundreds of patents regarding its minutiae; if it turns out that the work we do ends up being contentious and spawning a PAG (Patent Advisory Group), it is better that it be isolated and not slow down the work going on in the rest of the WebApps WG. In addition to this, the vast majority of topics and emails on this list will not concern these other folks at all; it is rather overwhelming to get involved in such a high-traffic (and frankly contentious) list, especially if you aren't already in Web standards culture. So, regardless of where the actual deliverable ends up, it is therefore better to have a dedicated mailing list, for exactly the reason you state: it's confusing to have it move around, and keeping it on one list devoted to the topic will be much easier to track. If it happens that the Geolocation WG chartering fails, then the list can simply be attached to the WebApps WG. Easy. There is no additional burden on the WebApps WG participants to subscribe to one more list (or join one more WG), and there is a substantial burden on other interested parties in monitoring the public WebApps list. Seems like a clear choice to me. So, I'd respectfully ask that geolocation topics be conducted on public-geolocation, rather than slowing down the technical discussion by debating where we should be doing the work. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Doug Schepers wrote: > > Matt Womer and I have started a new email list for discussing > geolocation. The new list, public-geolocation [1], will be archived, and > the intent is for it to be the public list for the planned Geolocation > WG: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/ > > I want to encourage folks not to put off technical discussion on the > matter, or wait for the Geolocation WG to form; you can join the email > list today, and start your engines. Of particular interest will be > initial discussions of what the scope of the deliverables should be, and > that will affect the charter. Could we please keep the discussion to this group? It seems like most people on this group agree that the work should happen in this group, and it would be very confusing to have to move stuff back and forth, especially if the charter proposal for geo fails, as seems likely given several browser vendors have requested that it stay in this group. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
