Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel

Doug Schepers-3

Hi, Folks-

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.

In parallel, we will be working on the charter in public, and will
present it to W3M and submit it for AC Review.  We already know that
there is considerable Member interest in this activity, so we anticipate
a smooth review period, and will announce the new WG as soon as
possible.  We will keep the public-geolocation list informed every step
of the way.

We've also started a new W3C IRC channel, #geolocation.  Please feel
free to have discussions there, as well.  We are interested in keeping
logs of the chat there on the W3C servers, so chime in if you think
that's a good or bad idea.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel

Ian Hickson

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.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel

Doug Schepers-3

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel

Doug Schepers-3

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel

Maciej Stachowiak
In reply to this post by Doug Schepers-3


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
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel

Doug Schepers-3

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/
  [hidden email]

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel

Maciej Stachowiak


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/
> [hidden email]

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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel

Sunava Dutta

Inline...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
> 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/
> > [hidden email]
>
> 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
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dedicated Geolocation List and Channel

Jonas Sicking-2
In reply to this post by Maciej Stachowiak

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