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

Re: Invited expert and CG Contributor agreements

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:00:02 -0500
Message-ID: <54942152.6060900@gmail.com>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, public-w3process@w3.org
On 12/18/14 4:23 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
> On 2014-12-18 05:19, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>> 18.12.2014, 16:15, "Olle Olsson" <olleo@sics.se>:
>>> On 2014-12-16 20:24, David Singer wrote:
>>> Is this a restriction on an Invited Expert only holding while he 
>>> *is* an
>>> invited expert (which is role of a finite duration) or is it 
>>> intended to
>>> be a perpetual constraint?
>> It is a perpetual constraint, per the section on duration and 
>> termination:
>> [[[
>> Even in the event of termination of the Invited Expert relationship 
>> sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6 will persist.
>> ]]]
> I'm surprised about that restriction.  If that's been in the previous 
> public draft versions, I missed it.
> Would W3C Members apply that rule to themselves?  I doubt it, and it 
> isn't applied to W3C Members, what use is it to apply just to IEs?
> It wouldn't be surprising that some feature is useful broadly in 
> multiple contexts.  Someone contributing that to W3C should not mean 
> they can't also contribute their own work elsewhere for whatever 
> purpose they choose.  That paragraph should be removed - soon.   I 
> wouldn't consider agreeing to that as an IE either.

These are good questions/issues.

Since it seems like any restriction on derivative work upon an IE's 
termination could result in reduced (perhaps eliminated) employment 
opportunities, I wonder if this restriction has actually been a problem 
in practice (i.e. is there some `real` data) and would the restriction 
actually hold up in court.

Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 13:00:33 UTC

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