W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Invited expert and CG Contributor agreements

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:56:18 -0500
Message-ID: <5491DFE2.9060103@intertwingly.net>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
On 12/17/2014 12:32 PM, David Singer wrote:
>
>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 12:47 , Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/16/14 2:24 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>> [changing the subject as this is a new can of worms]
>>>
>>>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:44 , Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Use case: should I ever become unemployed (to be clear: my company
>>>> seems happy with me, but many companies do periodic "reductions in
>>>> force" with no apparent rhyme or reason), I would still be
>>>> interested in working on the URL specification; and would be
>>>> willing to sign a CLA like the ASF's, but would not be willing to
>>>> sign the current Invited Experts agreement.
>>>
>>> I assume the problematic part is this?
>>>
>>> "The Invited Expert agrees to refrain from creating derivative works
>>> that include the Invited Expert's contributions when those derivative
>>> works are likely to cause confusion about the status of the W3C work
>>> or create risks of non-interoperability with a W3C Recommendation.
>>> «Branching» is one example of a non-permissible derivative work.”
>>>
>>> I think this is something we are unlikely to enforce. If I own the
>>> copyright in my contributions (and I do), I cannot then be
>>> constrained in what I do with something I own, reasonably, can I?
>>
>> Jeff is correct: regarding agreeing in advance.
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0089.html
>>
>> As to "unlikely to enforce", I've been burned in the past by an agreement saying one thing and the company on the other saying another, quite publicly, in writing, and on stage.  If the W3C is unlikely to enforce this, then it shouldn't be in the agreement.  Period.
>
> I agree. A test would be that we should be at least willing to send an admonishing/request-to-desist email; if we wouldn’t even do that, then we should drop the statement. I don’t think we would, unless the relationship with the IE was already falling apart for other reasons. So I am with you.

As you are aware, I made this request to the AB earlier this week, and 
got mixed reviews.  My takeaway: some were in favor, some felt it wasn't 
necessary, and some of felt that it would not be a good use of anybody's 
time to reopen this particular can of worms.

I have enough gray in my beard to know that that means: no action will 
be taken.

But since this is the public-w3process mailing list, where many of the 
subscribers are in favor of such things as escalation paths and the 
like, I won't ask the policy question, but rather a process question 
instead:

Anybody here have a suggestion for next steps?

To be clear on what I'm looking for:

I'm not looking for a new Invited Expert agreement to be in place before 
the completion of the current holiday season or anything like that.  I'm 
looking for somebody (probably Wendy?) to draft up (and post for public 
review) a new Invited Expert agreement in 1Q15, for that to be out for a 
discussion for most likely a minimum of a full 90 days, and then for it 
to be considered for adoption.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 19:57:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:25 UTC