Re: Scope Proposal

On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:17:48 +0100, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>
> On Monday, November 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Francois Daoust wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/2011 02:04 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> > (Sorry to be a PITA)
>>
>>
>>
>> You're not ;)
>> These are good questions. Let me try to answer...
>>
>>
>> > On Monday, 14 November 2011 at 13:46, Francois Daoust wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Something can only become an Essential Claim by being part of a  
>> Specification.
>> > We will be making recommendations to other WGs about changes they  
>> should make to their specs. We may propose solutions that may be  
>> included into those specifications: hence, we are generating IPR.
>>
>>
>>
>> In order to be covered by the CLA a contribution needs to appear in a  
>> Specification, and what we're saying is that the CG won't produce any  
>> Specification. Email exchanges, Wiki pages and so on won't count as a  
>> Specification unless flagged as such.
>>
>> More info on CG deliverables at:
>> http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/#comm-deliverables
>>
>> The CG may discuss and propose a solution but it won't be covered by  
>> the CLA since the notion of Essential Claims in the CLA is restricted  
>> to contributions made to a Specification.
>
> Ok, makes sense.
>
>> > > No specification means no essential claim, so the assertion looks  
>> good. Instead of a raw "there will not be", I would have proposed "the  
>> group does not anticipate producing material subject to" to avoid  
>> having to ask ourselves whether the legal assertion is valid (yes/no  
>> questions tend not to have a yes/no answer when legal experts get asked  
>> ;)) but the intent is the same and my reply comes in a bit late, so  
>> scope is good as-is.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Does the above matter? Consider.
>> >
>> > 1. CG identifies issue X.
>> > 2. CG comes up with awesome solution Y.
>>
>>
>> Basically, we're saying here that CG won't "come up" with awesome  
>> solution Y, where "come up" means that solution Y won't be included in  
>> a Specification, because CG won't produce any Specification.
>
> Ok, the Chair needs to be a strict here. Having a bunch of engineers  
> trying not to solve problems is going to be tough :)  but it's good that  
> this is clear now.
>
>> > 3. CG proposes Y to Working Group Z.
>>
>> CG should probably rather propose issue X, motivated by use cases.
>>
> Yep.
>>
>>
>> > 4. Working Group Z includes Y wholesale into their spec A.
>>
>> Since solution Y is not in a Specification covered by the CLA, Working  
>> Group Z would need to assess whether it can include Y, which usually  
>> means enforcing that whoever contributed to that proposal joins the  
>> Working Group, as with any other substantive contribution that comes  
>> from outside of a Working Group.
>
> Ok, also makes sense (from CG side and WG side).
>
>> > 5. Unknowing CG member has patent on Y.
>>
>>
>> In practice, this whole thing also means that the CG should not spend  
>> too much time trying to find awesome solution Y since working groups  
>> will have a hard time integrating it if the origin of the solution is  
>> unclear or if they cannot get commitments from companies who  
>> participated in their elaboration.
> Again, a note to the Chair to smack down early solutions (or at least  
> try to keep a record of origin).
>
> Thanks again Francois for clarifying.

Speaking of chair... perhaps it's time to nominate some candidates and get  
going on selecting the chair for the group?

-- 
Erik Möller
Core Developer
Opera Software
twitter.com/erikjmoller

Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 14:28:02 UTC