- From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 00:53:32 +0000
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
> > The relatively broad set of topics proposed for the group's scope is > consistent with other IG charters (f.ex. Web & TV IG), whereas CGs tend > to be a bit more narrowly scoped. IGs also have a lower barrier for all > participants, provided the group's list is self-subscribe-able by > non-Members. > > <bryan> Lower compared to what? In terms of IP commitment (IG has none) so it is easier for at least the Member to participate in IG. <bryan> Then you mean I guess compared to a WG. I don't think anyone was discussing CoreMob transitioning to a WG. The barrier for IGs is not lower than for CGs, so in terms of IP commitment requirements that's not an advantage for a IG over a CG. > Would you call non-W3C-members "participants" and give them equal ability to contribute to the work in the IG, at least via email? Well of course. <bryan> It would be great to get the W3C staff and any potential chair(s) views on that. For myself, given that CoreMob transitioned to an IG I would welcome and treat with equal value the email list contributions of CG members (assuming that a CG continued to provide the necessary CG membership agreement, at minimum), and even presence in F2F meetings, to ensure this remains as open as possible.
Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 00:54:17 UTC