Revise DAS WG charter with new deliverables proposed by Mozilla

[anssiko]

PTAL @himorin @tidoust

Fix w3c/strategy#530 (comment)

[himorin]

I thought to add all under tentative,,, and I believe if we want to move all into normative deliverables, WG really needs full group resolution through CfC procedure. (also for normative deliverables, I am not sure and have not strictly evaluated whether Scope needs edit or not...)

Also edit for Vibration part is in this PR? (and wondered whether they have "Platform" in their name now, or not. like repository or wicg.io web site,,, although we already have the word in coordinations section of draft charter..)

(addition after initial posting) I believe there is no formal procedure (decision or else) in WICG side, just needs to ask marking as archived incubation. But if there is some, please kindly point them.

[anssiko]

Thank you for your swift review, @himorin.

My recollection was the group is expected to do a CfC at FPWD time and that the entire scope would be reviewed by the AC regardless of the "tentative" designation. @tidoust to correct me? Happy to do a CfC if that's expected at this stage.

"Web Platform Incubator Community Group" seems to still be the official name in https://www.w3.org/community/wicg/ and https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/wicg/ so I settled for that. Regardless of the group name, the intent of this note is to clarify coordination expectations for this deliverable.

[tidoust]

My recollection was the group is expected to do a CfC at FPWD time and that the entire scope would be reviewed by the AC regardless of the "tentative" designation. @tidoust to correct me? Happy to do a CfC if that's expected at this stage.

CfC at FPWD time and review of the entire scope during the AC review are both correct, but the Process also says "Modifications to a charter should have the consensus of the group":
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#charter-major-changes

It would be good to assess support in the Working Group, and document any dissent if needed, regardless of where these deliverables get added.

[anssiko]

Thank you again for the process insights, @tidoust.

@himorin I propose we will do a CfC when the entire charter scope is ready for review. Also, please feel free to propose Scope section updates as appropriate to account for these deliverables. I’d like to integrate your contributions into this PR to retain context.

Based on my assessment, with due consideration for dissent, the deliverables in this PR have been properly incubated and garnered adequate support, thus tentative designation was lifted. @tidoust please correct me if I’m wrong with my interpretation of the semantics.

Cc @reillyeon who is very familiar with these deliverables. He can provide expert insights as appropriate.

[himorin]

For vibration part, it seems I miss some discussion/suggestion from Mozilla, that added text in this PR for including potential incubation in WICG for Vibration API front is definetly from them. So, let me discard my comment about why this change is also included in this PR for proposed by Mozilla.

@himorin I propose we will do a CfC when the entire charter scope is ready for review. Also, please feel free to propose Scope section updates as appropriate to account for these deliverables. I’d like to integrate your contributions into this PR to retain context.

Based on my assessment, with due consideration for dissent, the deliverables in this PR have been properly incubated and garnered adequate support, thus tentative designation was lifted. @tidoust please correct me if I’m wrong with my interpretation of the semantics.

will try to investigate whether current Scope matches or not.

(with charter facilitator hat (only) on - even w/o staff contact; maybe better to state this kind of stupid text in this curcumstances...)
also I'm happy to include them into normative deliverables once mutual understanding / agreement over the entire WG is secured. (since proposed list of deliverables is the WG matter, even if external parties objects - they could raise objection during AC review period, also even if there are already raised potential concerning point - as similar to past FO council decision for new incubation I'd personally believe new incubation to push Web forward is allowed to any WG and technical concerns shall be handled by open public discussion during rec-track development process but not immediately rejected at chartering phase before having detailed technical conversation but not only by one-sided review and analysis.)

Cc @reillyeon who is very familiar with these deliverables. He can provide expert insights as appropriate.

if @reillyeon has some insight (or three matches with which item in Scope, specifically), it really helps me...

[anssiko]

@himorin thank you, I updated this PR to focus exclusively on the three new deliverables proposed by Mozilla: Web Bluetooth, Web Serial and WebUSB. Subsequent PRs will bring more updates. Do you prefer to land this first?

[himorin]

Maybe not directly respond to your question, but I'd say as following, @anssiko .
For removing not relevant part to the specific title from this PR, I believe we shall update draft per topic basis via PR, at this stage, without mixing anything else.

(with staff contact hat on)
Coordination of WG activities are entirely up to co-chairs, by means I'd follow your decision, so I have no comment to land this PR into draft at this point.

(with chartering facilitator hat on)
Since both draft charter and current charter states for potential new deliverables with subject of the Working Group, like 'the Working Group will prepare an updated Charter that differs only in deliverables', I shall need to state strong uncomfortable for landing this PR for adding new deliverables into normative list without securing consensus over the entire Working Group, e.g. using full CfC.

[marcoscaceres]

As part of Apple's wide review: there are open charter review comments on each of these three deliverables — #771 (Web Serial), #772 (WebUSB), #773 (Web Bluetooth). WebKit's published standards positions on WebUSB (oppose) and Web Bluetooth (oppose) are relevant context. Web Serial (#199) has no position yet.

I agree with @himorin and @tidoust that adding these as normative deliverables should not land without WG consensus. The TAG concerns in design-reviews#1187 are also unresolved.

[tantek]

Considering all three of these as tentative deliverables works for Mozilla. Thank you.