- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 10:35:55 -0500
- To: chaals@yandex-team.ru, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- CC: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 12/21/2014 5:20 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote: > Even the worst case in recent memory - HTML and the license experiment - only took months. And a lot of that time was because instead of just holding the discussion and making decisions, W3C tried to sort out everything in advance so there was no disagreement. That is a little unfair. I believe that the HTML formal objection arrived in February/March. At the next AB meeting of 8 April we surfaced our thoughts to the AB [1]. It is true that the AB was not thrilled with the experiment, but much of that was from people who thought we should do no experiment; and there were no suggestions of alternative better ways to run the experiment. We also surfaced the debate to the entire AC in June of 2013 [2], well before the Director made his final decision on the HTML Charter in August. [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/04/08-ab-irc [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/Talks/0610-html-document-license/#/ > So successfully that even the people whose original objection they were trying to satisfy were not satisfied with the result. Yes, this surprised us. We thought that by choosing one of the three licenses for an experiment that they mentioned in the Formal Objection we would satisfy their objection, but evidently we were wrong.
Received on Sunday, 21 December 2014 15:36:03 UTC