- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 13:05:53 -0800
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org, site-policy@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 14:03 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote: >> Dailey, David P. wrote: >> > I am not sure if Philippe's intention was to have this discussion here at public-html as well >> >> I'm not certain what plh's intentions were, but given that we were asked >> to provide use cases as a group, I would like to gather together a >> response as a group. I am planning on attending the AC meeting later >> this month, and would like to be able to represent the working group's >> position on this matter. > > Having the response from the HTML Working Group prior to the AC meeting > is going to be useful indeed, and discussion on public-html is perfectly > appropriate. site-policy isn't a public list so it can't be used for > useful discussion. W3C, as a SDO, isn't used to the concept of allowing > a fork. On the other hand, the HTML community, which nowadays contains a > significant chunk of open source individuals, is perfectly used to that > concept. I see the current discussion as a good preparation for the one > we'll have at the upcoming AC meeting. This is very understandable. But I think it would gain W3C a tremendous amount of trust if it were to allow it. To many people, me included, having the gurentee that W3C can't go off "into the weeds" means that I have don't have to worry about my time being wasted when I contribute. I think many people feel the same when they contribute to the forkable software I represent. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 21:06:36 UTC