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

Re: Invited expert agreement

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 06:10:25 -0500
Message-ID: <5492B621.9040400@intertwingly.net>
To: chaals@yandex-team.ru, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
On 12/18/2014 05:49 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> 17.12.2014, 22:57, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>:
>> 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 ... I ...
>>>>>>   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.
>
> To be explicit here: The invited expert agreement includes you agreeing to constrain yourself in such away, forever.
>
>>>>   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 disagree. There are requests made that will not be backed up by serious action but set expectations. That's a normal thing to do, so the question is whether the policy it reflects is one we want to keep.
>
>>>   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.
> [...]
>> 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,
>
> The policy question is in principle one for the W3C Team to decide, although it is the sort of policy question I generally suggest they ask about before taking the decision.
>
> I note that the draft member agreement, which I assume reflects the member agreements signed although as far as I know they are not public, does not seem to contain such a restriction, instead using roughly the same language as the earlier (2002) invited expert agreement.
>
> I also note a reference in the current agreement, dated 2007/06, suggesting that there is a new agreement at http://www.w3.org/Legal/2014/08-invited-expert.html that will come into force on adoption of the August 2014 Process. But the link doesn't lead to anything. Maybe there is something that was intended to go there…

I manged to find it.  The correct URL is:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2014/08-invited-expert.html

>> but rather a process question instead:
>>
>> Anybody here have a suggestion for next steps?
>
> I suggest you draft a proposal for a modified IE agreement yourself and invite comments.
>
> Although I claim there is no grey in my beard - and that funny lighting makes it seem there may be - I have found that is a more effective way to move things forward than waiting for someone else to do the drafting.

Fair enough:

http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/12/18/08-invited-expert.html

The one change is the removal of a single paragraph in section 2.2.

I hereby invite comments.

>> 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.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 11:11:14 UTC

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