Re: What are the PD/PP constraints? [Was: Re: Request by AB]

Oh, well this is awesome to read Jeff!

So among the problems I see are: PAGs suck (time, resources, joy from 
the WG, etc.); the PP takes too many resources to implement for me as an 
AC rep and our IP department; the totality of the PP for WGs plus the 
CG's two patent policies are at least one patent policy too many.

Proposed solution #1 -> drop the PP for WGs and drop the CG patent 
policies and move to a lightweight model like the IETF's patent policy model

Proposed solution #2 -> drop the PP for WGs and move WGs to use the CG 
patent policies

-Cheers, ArtB

On 3/5/12 4:47 PM, ext Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> [adding the AB as they might want to comment]
>
> On 3/5/2012 1:54 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On 2/7/12 5:51 AM, ext Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich wrote:
>>> As an aside,
>>>
>>> The Advisory Board has contacted Marcos and myself, as initiators of 
>>> this activity here, to contribute a list of problems with W3C 
>>> Process and potential solutions.
>>>
>>> I, for my part, referred to this activity and that we are still in 
>>> the problem finding phase and have not worked out solutions.
>>> I would also refrain from making proposals that have not been 
>>> supported by this group, as I think this is what this group is about.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, it would be nice to be able to give the AB some material to 
>>> work with.
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply on this but having just caught up on most of 
>> the comments on the recent Living Standards thread, I wanted to step 
>> back a bit and try to get some clarification on a couple of questions 
>> that were no doubt discussed a while ago ...
>>
>> What exactly is in play here i.e. what are the constraints re 
>> changing the PD and PP? Is everything in those docs truly open for 
>> change or are there parts of them that are considered axiomatic and 
>> thus deemed sacred and immutable? If the later, what are they?
>
> We are starting with a clean sheet of paper.  There is nothing deemed 
> sacred and immutable.
>
> An example of that is that we solicited input from Hixie.  He 
> responded with a description of quite a different approach to generate 
> standards.
>
> But it is important to also realize that the AB is not yet "up to" 
> generating solutions.  The major focus is to identify problems and 
> agree on them.
>
> Back to the Hixie example: while he provided problems and solutions, 
> the focus of the AB discussion subsequently was to crisply tease out 
> "problems" for the problem list.
>
> This was intended as input to the mid-February AB meeting.  Pretty 
> soon, I believe the AB will write to the AC with a status update.  In 
> any case, input is still welcome - it's not as if we will change the 
> process overnight.
>
>>
>> I'd like to understand this now (at least generally) so I don't waste 
>> my time working on "solutions" or "proposals", especially if folks 
>> from the AB and/or PSIG are just going to stand up say "wait, wait - 
>> we can't do X/Y/Z because that would change A/B/C and they are 
>> immutable!".
>
> Well we are working on problems, not solutions.  To be sure, there are 
> aspects of the W3C process that people like, and solutions that most 
> people would reject are probably not worth proposing.  My impression, 
> for example, is that most folks like getting RF commitments.  So 
> proposing that we drop RF might not go very far.
>
>>
>> Also, an observation I have - and it may be incorrect - is that there 
>> is a considerable amount of work that is ongoing at the W3C where the 
>> overall consensus of the active participants re process is 
>> effectively "if it ain't broke don't fix it" (f.ex. Semantic Web?, 
>> WAI?, XML?). If we assume this is true, is the idea in his CG more 
>> about how to change the processes for some specific WG that may 
>> decide to opt-in to a new proces model? Or is the CG trying to create 
>> a new process model for every WG?
>
> I would agree that we should focus on "real" problems.
>
>>
>> -Cheers, TheOtherAB
>
> gee, I thought that was Alan Bird.
>
>>
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 12:03:05 UTC