Re: patent policy and unnatural groupings

I was actually under the impression that we got the opposite effect -- work being done in a 'fragment group' so that some members of a super-group could avoid being under a commitment (by not joining the fragment group).

On Sep 21, 2013, at 7:39 , Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:

> The patent policy is harmful to web architecture. Specifications and working groups that should be modularized get lumped together in unnatural ways because putting work in a separate document or a separate committee would allow a key patent-holder to withdraw from their patent commitments.
>  
> Instead we wind up with these “Super working groups” with perpetual charters and lives.
>  
> I know no one wants to touch the patent policy, so I’m not suggesting changing it, but perhaps more explicitly evaluating the cost and finding other ways of compensating.
>  
> Larry
>  
>  
> From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:09 PM
> To: w3c-ac-forum@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Rethinking WG Charters and rechartering
>  
> The whole thing about PSIG and patent policy and whether rechartering creates a new WG I think is orthogonal to this discussion.  Right now you can modify the charter before it expiers.  It already happens.  And charters expire and new charters are approved.  Whatever the existential issues are about WGs, it already happens and no one goes off and does new FPWDs again each time.
> 
> All this proposal is about is whether we can agree to allow review of a modified charter that hasn't expired to be restricted to some well defined change and not open up the whole charter to review. Other than that, it is exactly as it is now, AC review, re-designating participants.  So it doesn't introduce anything at all new with respect to whether a WG is the same WG or not after the charter is modified.
> 
> We often can be very slow to make changes in process for what seem like simple things.  We should be able to move more quickly for things that obviously seem like positive changes.  
> 
> 
> On 9/19/2013 1:16 PM, Steve Zilles wrote:
> Remember that W3C Patent  Policy has a strong dependence on charters. The folks that did the Patent Policy (now PSIG) believe that each re-chartering of a Working Group creates a new Working Group and that is important to the working of the Patent Policy. Thus, it is not so simple to “just amend the charter” as much as I (and others) would like it to be. I (personally) really appreciate the support for going with a charter amending process (and there are some on the PSIG that feel the same). The AB has placed working something out for “supergroups”, such as CSS, on there agenda for the year.
>  
> Steve Zilles
>  
> From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:34 AM
> To: w3c-ac-forum@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Rethinking WG Charters and rechartering
>  
> +1
> 
> The W3C Process looks to me to allow this without any change to it.  Why don't we we do a CfC and do this?
> 
> On 9/18/2013 2:18 PM, David Singer wrote:
>  
> I think it's fine to consider "charter amendments" where the only things that the AC can vote or comment on is the amending material (and its relationship to and effect on the base charter, of course).  Such amendments might be as simple as deliverables, dates, or changing exit criteria, or…
>  
>  
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>  
>  
>  
>  

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Sunday, 22 September 2013 22:45:14 UTC