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

Re: Invited expert and CG Contributor agreements

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:22:29 -0800
Message-ID: <54946CE5.6080509@linux.intel.com>
To: chaals@yandex-team.ru, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>

On 2014-12-19 05:04, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> [snipped stuff for focus]
> 19.12.2014, 01:06, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>:
>> On 2014-12-18 13:33, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>>>   19.12.2014, 00:24, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>:
>>>>   It wouldn't be surprising that some feature is useful broadly in
>>>>   multiple contexts.
>>>   Yes.
>>>>     Someone contributing that to W3C should not mean
>>>>   they can't also contribute their own work elsewhere for whatever purpose
>>>>   they choose.
>>>   Maybe, maybe not. Let's see where the consensus is.
>>>>     That paragraph should be removed - soon.   I wouldn't
>>>>   consider agreeing to that as an IE either.
>>>   In my case it would depend on what I thought of and how much I trusted W3C. But there are obviously disadvantages if we're trying to get people to participate.
>> I was thinking about use in other contexts entirely - so not related to
>> trusting W3C or not.  Like, there's some algorithm the IE writes up that
>> is useful in a W3C spec, but also useful in say a Python or Java API
>> where they are also working (so, not taking anything anyone else
>> contributed, just their own contribution, and using it elsewhere).
> It would be a tough argument that doing something like that risks breaking interoperablity with W3C recommendations (although it could certainly be made) and probably even tougher to argue that it casts doubt on the status of the W3C spec.
> I don't think it's a big issue in practice.

It doesn't say "risks breaking interoperablity with W3C 
recommendations".  What it says is "create risks of non-interoperability 
with a W3C Recommendation".  risks breaking interoperability sounds like 
two versions of the same spec.  create risks of non-interoperability 
with a W3C Recommendation sounds much broader.  Suppose a feature in a 
larger W3C spec uses XML in an interchange format.  And the person 
contributes the same feature to a Python spec that is completely 
unrelated to the W3C spec, but switches the interchange format to JSON.  
Is that risking non-interoperability with the W3C Recommendation they 
aren't using?

I think the paragraph should be deleted, but if it isn't, it should be 
rewritten.  If it's meant to mean that someone can't contribute to W3C 
and some other version of the same spec outside W3C, it should say that 
explicitly. Hinting at it, if that's what this means, creates lack of 
clarity about what exactly is being forbidden.

> cheers
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 18:31:38 UTC

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