W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Slides: 2014 Update - Community and Business Groups

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:23:02 -0700
Message-ID: <53987456.8050200@linux.intel.com>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
CC: public-council@w3.org

On 2014-06-08 10:47, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> 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

But there still needs to be some way to indicate whether the patent 
policy obligations apply to a particular Report in a CG.  A CG could 
produce specs meant as inputs to W3C or some other standards org or as 
finished standards for use by some community.  Those are the ones that 
patent licensing obligations apply to.  It shouldn't apply to reports 
about use cases, requirements, surveys of how products in the market 
accomplish some task, summaries of current research on some topic, etc.  
So we need some name for CG outputs that are meant to be specs (either 
as is or as input to someone else who creates specs) and when people 
objected to "specification" for that no one suggested a better name.    
There needs to be some name to indicate what the patent policy applies 
to.  (e.g. in W3C it is only Recommendations it applies to).

One alternative solution would be to list (and describe) all reports 
that the CLA patent policy applies to in the CG charter.  But, that 
would require a CG has a charter. (which we don't require now).


>> 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 Wednesday, 11 June 2014 15:23:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:16:36 UTC