W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > March 2013

RE: Next Steps for W3C Coremob

From: Josh Soref <jsoref@blackberry.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:03:44 +0000
To: Core Mobile <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <957F1ECDA90E004B8DBDE23CFC94E3A33A692FAF@XMB103ECNC.rim.net>
Jo wrote:
> 3. Organization of the Group
> From discussion over the last weeks it would seem that it would make
> sense for the group to transition from a Community Group to an
> Interest Group.

> There are a number of benefits to this, in particular that of gaining
> dedicated W3C team resource.

While this is a single benefit, and while getting Zakim access is indeed valuable, I think that it fails to outweigh my concerns below.

If this work is really so important, then perhaps W3 will just have to come up with a way to make an exception and allocate those resources anyway.

> There are also a number of areas to look at,
> particularly how people and organizations that are unaffiliated with
> W3C might continue to contribute. 

While it's true that it's hard for non-W3 members to participate in IGs, I'd like to note that it was easy for us, a W3 member to join Core Mobile, whereas we've had significant trouble getting internal approval to join traditional WGs. 

For something which is more or less an advocacy group, the CG style IPR commitment is a lot easier to sell to our powers that be than the IG/WG commitments. 

There are two classes of IP disclosure under the W3 Patent Policy [1]. There's a table of the agreements and policies in the community compare [2] page.

The first is more or less what applies to members of a WG - where they generally grant RF - see "W3C Patent Policy (Recommendations)".
The second is what applies to an IG see "W3C Patent Policy (Disclosure)". I've recently been spending a lot of time talking with people about how disclosure affects things (because patents have been mentioned in the news over the past week or so), and I'm fairly concerned that through a chain of unfortunately interrelated things, Disclosure may be seen by management as just as big of a reason not to allow someone to join a group as RF granting is. This is a new opinion, it doesn't represent any actual Legal opinion, nor the opinion of any entity, but it is where I sit today.

There are of course other policies for CGs - the W3C Community Contributor License Agreement [3]. As we're all members of the CG (and have thus accepted those terms), I'm not going to explain those terms here :).

> The group as pictured above will have a very broad remit and in
> order to make sensible progress on chosen topics we will need
> to make sure there is focus.

I can assure you that terms like this make the already painful process of joining a WG w/ its large IPR scope infinitely more painful.

So, while I, in principle, think it's the right scope, I think you should accept that using IG IPR policy instead of CG IPR policy is pretty much a non-starter.

> We must also make sure that a broad range of possible participants
> can contribute where they feel they are particularly interested without
> being burdened with things that they are less interested in.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
[2] http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/compare/
[3] http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/

This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 18:04:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:48 UTC