- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:50:26 +0100
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Cc: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, public-nextweb@w3.org
On Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 7:54 PM, Brian Kardell wrote: > > It is an unfortunate time to be asking us this question to be honest, since we haven't even begun the discussions about how that would work... I have avoided opening that discussion until a few others (hopefully) get approval to join, but that is just how the w3c schedule works out. > > > I think at this point, the question is more to folks whose affiliation is with member orgs. The distinction is that Communiry Groups and Working Groups (at least currently) have very distinct legal participation implications and therefore committing to join a CG is actually a more difficult process at most companies whose AC is charged with getting legal checks. This is actually why a few folks aren't in yet, despite having clicked "join" quite some time ago. W3C WG agreement is considerably more comfortable to legal in many cases (anyone from a member org besides me feel free to clarify/dispute thus), but it is partially because the charter is well defined...i am not sure if it would be plausible with ours as it stands. I don't think it matters too much to be honest. The CG structure we currently have is much more restrictive (and hence should be legally easier to handle) because our group is not chartered to produce any specs. Anyway, I personally don't think it would be particularly useful to transition this group into a full WG. We can liaise just fine with other parts of the W3C organisation through the various mailing lists (as we currently do). I would like us to continue to serve as an advocacy group for a prollyfillable Web platform and to continue to champion the needs of developers and the role of backwards/future compatibility in maintaining a healthy Web ecosystem. My 2c. -- Marcos Caceres
Received on Saturday, 27 April 2013 19:50:56 UTC