Re: DOM, Promises, and licensing

On 7/12/2013 2:16 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
> I think this is all misdirection from the core question:
>
> Jeff: did you express that view to Anne?

I'm not sure I understand which view you are talking about.  I've 
certainly expressed the view that the W3C Document License does not 
permit forking.  Is that what you are asking?

> And is it not based on an /opinion/ of the policies in effect with 
> regards to derivitive works in this area? Is it really necessary to 
> ask the AC to change the Team's opinion on this?

Again, don't understand.  It is not an opinion that our current license 
does not permit forking.

>
> Anne: can you make the formal request per the rule there?
>
> Jeff: assuming he does, can you please advise on a timeframe for 
> getting a response?
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 7/12/2013 2:02 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>         On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org
>         <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>             First, if Anne has a request, I would like to hear his
>             request.  I don't
>             want to hypothetically guess his request and respond to
>             all possible
>             interpretations.
>
>         Alex asked why DOM in W3C was not updated. I told him that per
>         your
>         understanding of the W3C Member Agreement I could not be a
>         Member of
>         the W3C WebApps WG, push snapshots to TR/, while
>         simultaneously edit
>         http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ This generalizes to other
>         documents I work
>         on as I understand it.
>
>         I cannot speak for WHATWG (no space), but I personally would
>         not want
>         to edit anything that cannot be forked.
>
>
>     As we've discussed many times, at a personal level I respect your
>     decision not to work on documents that cannot be forked, even
>     though it disappoints me from a W3C point of view.
>
>     I've also said that over time I'm hopeful that we get to a point
>     that we have an evolved consensus in this area.
>
>     First step - still not a done deal - is the revision of the HTML5
>     Charter and forking for extension specifications.
>
>
>
>         --
>         http://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>
>