- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:12:13 -0700
- To: Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@chromium.org>
On May 17, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com> wrote: > On 17 May 2012 19:15, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com> wrote: >>>> A few humble thoughts >>>> >>>> -Have the CG recruit an experienced implementor or editor to >>>> participate more or less from the beginning. This may short-circuit >>>> time spent on solutions that won't work for esoteric reasons, and >>>> there will be at least one person with one foot in both worlds. >>> >>> This would be awesome. >> >> FWIW, I wanted to do this, but Google's policy of having us talk to >> the patents guys before joining CGs turned me off from actually >> joining. So, I just followed from the side and couldn't interact >> enough. :/ > > Is this something that Google might be willing to bend somewhat? I.e., > when you're on the CG you're a free-agent and not representing Google? > Or, for the sake of politics, could it be worked around in that > instead of joining the CG you keep track of things via the RSS feed > (it is after all public) and post to the WHATWG mailing list with > "observations" every once in a while - as long as core CG members know > to keep an eye out that's not necessarily a huge problem. > > I dunno, politics complicates stuff. And patenting open-web stuff to > me seems wrong on any number of levels. CGs actually have very little patent obligation compared to W3C Working Groups, so Apple has lighter weight approval for those than for WGs. Perhaps Google could consider the same thing. I believe the CG rules would not allow an employee of a W3C Member company to be a "free agent" though. - Maciej
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 19:12:43 UTC