- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 13:47:02 -0400
- To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Cc: public-council@w3.org
On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> >>> * #14 - I continue to think it was a mistake to call CG documents "specifications". Do we collectively feel the `ship has sailed` on this? If not, IMHO, changing the name to "reports" would be a better match and eliminate the confusion with WG specifications. >> >> Deliverables of CGs are called "Reports". However we refer to them as specifications when they are. >> So it's difficult to avoid using the term. A question we ask for certain proposed groups is whether they're going to work on a specification. When I conduct the surveys, I ask the chairs whether their group works on specs or are discussion groups. > > > The W3C Community Contributor License Agreement (CLA) has patent licensing obligations for "Specifications". The term is also used to refer to those in the Community process doc. That indicates which Reports the patent section of the CLA applies to. So, there needs to be some term to indicate which CG reports the patent licensing obligations apply to. One goal we have is to review and revise all the materials to use "Report" as the term of art. That's in the todo list: http://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Cg_2013 > > I think it would be good to formally define at CG creation whether the CG can produce specs or not. That's also in the todo list. > Those that don't produce specs could have a simpler CLA that didn't involve patents (like using CC By). That would be like W3C IGs vs. WGs. There can make a difference for what kind of approval internal approval process companies need to go through for joining. Ian -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Sunday, 8 June 2014 17:47:06 UTC