Re: Things that make you go hmmm [Was: Fwd: RE: Next Steps for W3C Coremob]

On 12 Mar 2013, at 4:40 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> Hi Josh, All,
> 
> Josh - this is really interesting and by interesting I mean "hmmm, I hadn't quite thought of the IG vs. CG issue the way you interpret/portray it". I'm reluctant to say on this Public list how I _personally_ (IANAL proviso applies too) see things (e.g. the disclosure requirements for IG vs. CG) differently, although I would be interested in hearing other Council members' opinions.
> 
> BTW, Josh's e-mail below, points to the group type comparison document which I only discovered recently. <http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/compare/>. Perhaps it would be useful to add something like a "disclosure [obligation]" property and to briefly summarize the obligation/requirement for the various group types.
> 
> Some other comments on this table - for the PP row, WG column, what does the "(Recommendation)" mean. If this is a reference to the PP, please add a link. Also, please add a link to "(Disclosure)" in the PP row, IG column.

Art,

I've updated the table based on your comments. Let me know if that helps.

Ian

> 
> -AB
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	RE: Next Steps for W3C Coremob
> Resent-Date: 	Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:04:15 +0000
> Resent-From: 	<public-coremob@w3.org>
> Date: 	Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:03:44 +0000
> From: 	ext Josh Soref <jsoref@blackberry.com>
> To: 	Core Mobile <public-coremob@w3.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Jo wrote:
>> 3. Organization of the Group
>> From discussion over the last weeks it would seem that it would make
>> sense for the group to transition from a Community Group to an
>> Interest Group.
> 
>> There are a number of benefits to this, in particular that of gaining
>> dedicated W3C team resource.
> 
> While this is a single benefit, and while getting Zakim access is indeed valuable, I think that it fails to outweigh my concerns below.
> 
> If this work is really so important, then perhaps W3 will just have to come up with a way to make an exception and allocate those resources anyway.
> 
>> There are also a number of areas to look at,
>> particularly how people and organizations that are unaffiliated with
>> W3C might continue to contribute.
> 
> While it's true that it's hard for non-W3 members to participate in IGs, I'd like to note that it was easy for us, a W3 member to join Core Mobile, whereas we've had significant trouble getting internal approval to join traditional WGs.
> 
> For something which is more or less an advocacy group, the CG style IPR commitment is a lot easier to sell to our powers that be than the IG/WG commitments.
> 
> There are two classes of IP disclosure under the W3 Patent Policy [1]. There's a table of the agreements and policies in the community compare [2] page.
> 
> The first is more or less what applies to members of a WG - where they generally grant RF - see "W3C Patent Policy (Recommendations)".
> The second is what applies to an IG see "W3C Patent Policy (Disclosure)". I've recently been spending a lot of time talking with people about how disclosure affects things (because patents have been mentioned in the news over the past week or so), and I'm fairly concerned that through a chain of unfortunately interrelated things, Disclosure may be seen by management as just as big of a reason not to allow someone to join a group as RF granting is. This is a new opinion, it doesn't represent any actual Legal opinion, nor the opinion of any entity, but it is where I sit today.
> 
> There are of course other policies for CGs - the W3C Community Contributor License Agreement [3]. As we're all members of the CG (and have thus accepted those terms), I'm not going to explain those terms here :).
> 
>> The group as pictured above will have a very broad remit and in
>> order to make sensible progress on chosen topics we will need
>> to make sure there is focus.
> 
> I can assure you that terms like this make the already painful process of joining a WG w/ its large IPR scope infinitely more painful.
> 
> So, while I, in principle, think it's the right scope, I think you should accept that using IG IPR policy instead of CG IPR policy is pretty much a non-starter.
> 
>> We must also make sure that a broad range of possible participants
>> can contribute where they feel they are particularly interested without
>> being burdened with things that they are less interested in.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/compare/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447

Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 02:23:38 UTC