W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > November 2014

Re: WHATWG/W3C collaboration proposal

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:41:19 +0000
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "Revising W3C Process Community Group" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1416764478002.93705@microsoft.com>
> Based on a pointer by Anne[1], there may be a problem.

I'm not sure of what Anne's 2012 situation was, but there is now a WebApps WG charter [http://www.w3.org/2014/06/webapps-charter.html] that *explicitly* specifies that the URL spec may be done under a "Dual License as specified in section 8 of the HTML Working Group charter,"  which in turn refers a dual license under CC-BY and the W3C document license.  The rationale given to the Advisory Committee was to allow the URL spec to be developed in collaboration with WHATWG.  

Sam's proposal seems to be an operational plan to make this happen.  Yes, it would be a problem if the W3C document licensed version of a spec is the master copy and those who want to improve it fork off derivative specifications.   But if the GitHub version is the master copy and the W3C snapshot is a derivative, then presumably one can create further forks of the GitHub version without violating the copyright on the W3C snapshot.  

If this is in violation of the Member Agreement, I would have expected someone to make that point during the AC review of the WebApps charter. IANAL so if this is a real current concern, we should loop in Wendy, PSIG, and/or members own legal staff for guidance. 



________________________________________
From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:53 AM
To: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH); Jeff Jaffe; Revising W3C Process Community Group
Subject: Re: WHATWG/W3C collaboration proposal

On 11/21/2014 11:59 AM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
>>> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2014/11/20/WHATWG-W3C-Collaboration
>
>> Thanks for asking.  I'm just one person in this CG, but my first
>> reading agrees that it is not clear that any process change would
>> be required.
>
> That's also my initial read.  I think this is consistent with the
> letter and spirit of the revised process document:  what's important
> when finalizing a Recommendation is the extent of consensus, RF
> patent commitments, and interoperable implementation experience at
> the end of the process, not the mechanisms of how the spec got
> written and reviewed.
>
> I like the idea of using the URL spec as a test case, but I wonder if
> we shouldn't use this opportunity to go further and try out some of
> Robin Berjon's ideas (if I recall various TPAC conversations
> correctly):
>
> - having a common GitHub repository for WHATWG and W3C versions of a
> spec and shipping W3C Recommendations off a "stabilizing" branch
>
> - Hosting that repo and the discussion forums for a spec in a neutral
> venue such as WebPlatform.org to encourage broader participation.

Based on a pointer by Anne[1], there may be a problem.  Specifically,
section 7b of the Member Agreement[2], and section 2.2 of the Invited
Expert and Collaborator Agreement[3] seem to prevent this.

My original question as to whether or not there would be any process
changes required to implement this may have been too limited in scope.
What question should I be asking?

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2014Nov/0029.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/Member-Agreement#ipr
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2007/06-invited-expert#L118
Received on Sunday, 23 November 2014 17:41:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:13 UTC