Re: Draft W3C Excerpt License

> I don't want to go there.  This process where we produce use cases,
> hear nothing for weeks, and then get a response that intentionally
> ignores some use cases and unintentionally doesn't satisfy others is
> fundamentally broken.

We haven't been following much of a process so far and things have been
rushed along the path. The decision from the HTML Working Group to
support the use cases was done on February 17. The first draft of the
proposed license was done on Wednesday 18 and discussed that day. True
enough, this has been on our TODO list for quite a long time and never
made it quite the top of it. It did after the recorded decision of the
HTML Working Group. Between Feb 18 and March 2, refinements were made,
which I would qualify as mainly clarifications. On March 4, the decision
was made to get it out, which I supported since the important thing was
to get something out the door before the AC. I'll admit that the
announcement was abrupt and not presented as a preliminary work, but my
goal was to get some of the positions clear on the table and starts from
there. I do not believe enough thoughts were given to the use cases.

> I want a dialog.

And dialog will happen but, given the magnitude of the change, it can't
simply happen between the W3C Team and one W3C Working Group. I believe
that the AC is the right place to start the dialog and change things. I
do believe we'll see some positive for the HTML Working Group coming out
of the AC.

> Until we get that, my preference is that we simply reaffirm the
> original use cases, indicate that we are in agreement that the draft
> we have seen does not satisfy those use cases, and more carefully
> and succinctly spell out the implications of these issue in terms
> that are relevant to the W3C.

I believe this is the right approach indeed. Listing the pros and cons
and having a compelling story would be even more beneficial.

Philippe

Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 19:51:54 UTC