W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2012

Re: updated draft charter

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:54:20 +0200
Cc: W3C SysApps <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C57E96C3-BBC9-4ED0-A12A-911D8275A1FA@berjon.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
On Jun 5, 2012, at 22:44 , Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>> > "Other APIs that adhere to the Goals and the Scope of the charter and which do not directly conflict with the chartered deliverables of another Working Group."
>>> 
>> Lawyers wouldn’t be too happy about that when trying to figure out scope of possible licensing commitments.  That would be anything is in scope that isn’t being done elsewhere.
> 
> no, since the above language scopes "Other APIs" to Goals/Scope and non-conflict;

That's circular: the way in which the scope is defined is through the deliverables. Adding any wildcard opens the commitment to potentially anything (especially here, where the entire system is being looked at).

> in any case, since we aren't lawyers, perhaps we shouldn't presuppose their reaction (if any)? 

We might not be lawyers but this discussion has taken place dozens of times for many other groups, and we've experimented with lots of alternatives. At this point the feedback from lawyers on such a proposal is actually very easy to guess. What's more, I know that there are at least two companies that I think would be very valuable to have on this group that would be excluded outright because of such language.

> p.s. in any case, that's what the call for exclusions phase is for at FPWD time, yes? 

In theory you could run a group on the premise that members aren't really committed but instead get to exclude their IPR at exclusion opportunities FPWD and LC. But given how disruptive a PAG is, the only place that group would run would be to the ground (and then some).

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 08:54:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 June 2012 08:54:47 GMT