"Status of this document" section needs to reflect join deliverable status

[reillyeon]

As discussed in #142 the "Status of this document" section does not sufficiently reflect the joint deliverable status of this specification. That CL adds "text macro" declarations which should be sufficient but there appear to be deficiencies in the Bikeshed boilerplate text which need to be addressed.

In particular, the line "This document was produced by the Devices and Sensors Working Group." should read something like "This document was produced as a joint deliverable of the Devices and Sensors Working Group and Web Applications Working Group."

We also found that while there is a section on the W3C Patent Policy which acknowledges the joint deliverable status it would also be helpful for the document to also be explicit about the need to satisfy the success criteria for both groups.

[himorin]

added a PR to boilerplate speced/bikeshed-boilerplate#62

• we need to ask fixes of pubrules, current template does not allow any from than 'Working Group' for stability warning section (even 'Working Groups' will not pass)
• do we want to add webapps mail list to make a comment section?

We may write as Working Group<span include-if="Text Macro: JOINT">(s)</span>, but I'm not sure meaning less <span> will pass pubrules.

[anssiko]

@himorin thanks for the updates.

Because pubrules checker does not seem to fully understand the joint deliverable concept yet, I suggest we update SOTD to acknowledge both the groups as appropriate and @himorin opens a pubrules bug to report this issue and links to that bug in the transition request.

In general, SOTD should make sure both the groups are equally acknowledged. For all applicable instances of:

• Devices and Sensors Working Group -> Devices and Sensors Working Group and Web Applications Working Group
• (if no group name mentioned) Working Group -> Working Group(s)
• please send them to public-device-apis@w3.org (subscribe, archives) -> please send them to public-device-apis@w3.org (subscribe, archives) and public-webapps@w3.org (subscribe, archives)

[himorin]

filed as w3c/specberus#1818
I see no other warning than stability section, so I've pointed only that.

[himorin]

@anssiko checking webapps boilerplate, mail list is no longer used for webapps, like
https://github.com/speced/bikeshed-boilerplate/blob/04c228c0b6d949ed55b4f13bb6d91c139ab6e317/boilerplate/webapps/status-WD.include#L20C1-L21C103

    Historical discussions can be found in the
    <a href="https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/">public-webapps@w3.org archives</a>.

@marcoscaceres @siusin do you have any recommendation on this point?

Also a PR to boilerplate updated.

[siusin]

public-webapps@ is still active, it's all right to take Anssi's suggestion. The WebApps WG charter says:

This group primarily conducts its technical work on the public mailing list public-webapps@w3.org (archive), and on GitHub issues.

Most of the WebApps WG specs are using GitHub issues to collect feedback, instead of the mailing list though.

I wonder if it's possible to use:
please send them to public-device-apis@w3.org (subscribe, archives) -> please file an issue in https://github.com/w3c/deviceorientation GitHub repository, or send them to public-device-apis@w3.org (subscribe, archives) and public-webapps@w3.org (subscribe, archives)

[himorin]

@siusin thank you for confirmation. updated PR.

[marcoscaceres]

Should we bother with the mailing lists at all? At least, we don't want new comments going to the mailing list... they should only go to GitHub.

[anssiko]

Fixed by manually published https://www.w3.org/TR/2024/WD-orientation-event-20240411/ per https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2024Apr/0005.html -- closing.