RE: Invited expert agreement

>  I can not see any objection for an invited expert to give his work and time  for the purposes of the Consortium and for the common good.

For better or worse, there *are* objections, particularly from people who have the interest, ability, and time needed to contribute to web standards work. Some don’t see the Consortium as working for their vision of the common good, so do their work outside it.  I’m not sure if this will help bring them back, but it’s a gesture of reconciliation and good faith.  Others seem OK with the Consortium itself but have personal objections to signing legal agreements that constrain their right to continue their work elsewhere if the W3C effort stalls or goes off into an unworkable direction.


From: Delfí Ramírez [mailto:delfin@delfiramirez.info]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:54 AM
To: chaals@yandex-team.ru
Cc: Sam Ruby; David Singer; Jeff Jaffe; public-w3process; Wendy Seltzer
Subject: Re: Invited expert agreement


Dear all:

Some brief notes you may take in consideration.

There is no debate in the rights or license an invited expert should have in his relation with the Consortium.

Repo, whether total or partial, does not involve the loss or waiver of the intellectual rights by the invited expert.

As I fail to understand and based on my experience or the experience from colleagues, the present normative (international and national) on property, rights, remarks that the copyright or license of the result from the work,  is preserved by the person, who holds it, without implying the non-assignment of these copyrighted  work

This copyright and license question  -- as I see -- rises from the fact that the invited expert will not be subject to the discipline of the consortium, because he will take part, and will be invited, and that his mission will have a predefined range in the time.

I do not see the need of CCO, as I am convinced there is no need for it, because of the invited expert will be willingly to offer his expertise and knowledge to the Consortium.

Invited experts have always the right to cede, for a specified time, and by mutual agreement between the parties, the rights of which they are keepers and which emanate from their own work or the company he or she represents.


The invited experts should and are obliged to maintain and to be in possession of all the rights that their work generates.

The invited experts understand the need to cede of their work and understand the scope of derivative works thereof are generated.


For these reasons explained in this list , I can not see any objection for an invited expert to give his work and time  for the purposes of the Consortium and for the common good.

Please consider the above exposed as a single notes or personal observations, to put light on this debate, and thus help in the completeness of the same.

BR


---
delfin@delfiramirez.info<mailto:delfin@delfiramirez.info>
http://delfiramirez.info<http://delfiramirez.info/>
skype username: segonquart
twitter:@delfinramirez
common weblog: http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com<http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com/>
about: Technology Lover & good cook.
place: Somewhere over Europe.
My Digital Signature<http://delfiramirez.info/public/dr_public_key.asc>

On 18/12/2014 11:49, chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

17.12.2014, 22:57, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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...
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.
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<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> - - - Find more at http://yandex.com