AW: What are the PD/PP constraints? [Was: Re: Request by AB]

Hi Art,

I agree that PAGs are unpleasant.  
In the same time patents are the very currency by which companies secure their interests.
This runs counter to an open Web.
If RF were not defended, I only see a path into a highly complex, terribly proprietary Web.

As such PAGs are the very front at which the conflicting interests of companies and the open Web as a common good clash.
It is here that lines are drawn in the sand and I don't think that works without some dreary negations, some open conflict and time invested.

I think we need PAGs and a strong PP.
In the end I believe they even defend the interests of companies, as they prevent a grid lock.

-- Kai

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. März 2012 13:02
> An: ext Jeff Jaffe
> Cc: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich; public-w3process@w3.org; Charles
> McCathieNevile; ab@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: What are the PD/PP constraints? [Was: Re: Request by AB]
> 
> Oh, well this is awesome to read Jeff!
> 
> So among the problems I see are: PAGs suck (time, resources, joy from
> the WG, etc.); the PP takes too many resources to implement for me as
> an
> AC rep and our IP department; the totality of the PP for WGs plus the
> CG's two patent policies are at least one patent policy too many.
> 
> Proposed solution #1 -> drop the PP for WGs and drop the CG patent
> policies and move to a lightweight model like the IETF's patent policy
> model
> 
> Proposed solution #2 -> drop the PP for WGs and move WGs to use the CG
> patent policies
> 
> -Cheers, ArtB
> 
> On 3/5/12 4:47 PM, ext Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> > [adding the AB as they might want to comment]
> >
> > On 3/5/2012 1:54 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> >> On 2/7/12 5:51 AM, ext Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich wrote:
> >>> As an aside,
> >>>
> >>> The Advisory Board has contacted Marcos and myself, as initiators
> of
> >>> this activity here, to contribute a list of problems with W3C
> >>> Process and potential solutions.
> >>>
> >>> I, for my part, referred to this activity and that we are still in
> >>> the problem finding phase and have not worked out solutions.
> >>> I would also refrain from making proposals that have not been
> >>> supported by this group, as I think this is what this group is
> about.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> However, it would be nice to be able to give the AB some material
> to
> >>> work with.
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Sorry for the late reply on this but having just caught up on most
> of
> >> the comments on the recent Living Standards thread, I wanted to step
> >> back a bit and try to get some clarification on a couple of
> questions
> >> that were no doubt discussed a while ago ...
> >>
> >> What exactly is in play here i.e. what are the constraints re
> >> changing the PD and PP? Is everything in those docs truly open for
> >> change or are there parts of them that are considered axiomatic and
> >> thus deemed sacred and immutable? If the later, what are they?
> >
> > We are starting with a clean sheet of paper.  There is nothing deemed
> > sacred and immutable.
> >
> > An example of that is that we solicited input from Hixie.  He
> > responded with a description of quite a different approach to
> generate
> > standards.
> >
> > But it is important to also realize that the AB is not yet "up to"
> > generating solutions.  The major focus is to identify problems and
> > agree on them.
> >
> > Back to the Hixie example: while he provided problems and solutions,
> > the focus of the AB discussion subsequently was to crisply tease out
> > "problems" for the problem list.
> >
> > This was intended as input to the mid-February AB meeting.  Pretty
> > soon, I believe the AB will write to the AC with a status update.  In
> > any case, input is still welcome - it's not as if we will change the
> > process overnight.
> >
> >>
> >> I'd like to understand this now (at least generally) so I don't
> waste
> >> my time working on "solutions" or "proposals", especially if folks
> >> from the AB and/or PSIG are just going to stand up say "wait, wait -
> >> we can't do X/Y/Z because that would change A/B/C and they are
> >> immutable!".
> >
> > Well we are working on problems, not solutions.  To be sure, there
> are
> > aspects of the W3C process that people like, and solutions that most
> > people would reject are probably not worth proposing.  My impression,
> > for example, is that most folks like getting RF commitments.  So
> > proposing that we drop RF might not go very far.
> >
> >>
> >> Also, an observation I have - and it may be incorrect - is that
> there
> >> is a considerable amount of work that is ongoing at the W3C where
> the
> >> overall consensus of the active participants re process is
> >> effectively "if it ain't broke don't fix it" (f.ex. Semantic Web?,
> >> WAI?, XML?). If we assume this is true, is the idea in his CG more
> >> about how to change the processes for some specific WG that may
> >> decide to opt-in to a new proces model? Or is the CG trying to
> create
> >> a new process model for every WG?
> >
> > I would agree that we should focus on "real" problems.
> >
> >>
> >> -Cheers, TheOtherAB
> >
> > gee, I thought that was Alan Bird.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 08:47:16 UTC