- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:03:57 -0700
- To: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Following up to myself (I know, I should not), this gap is easily closed by having the WG operating under Charter B issue WDs immediately on forming (maybe as part of the charter: ‘this WG adopts the following WDs as WDs.’) Then there is a pre-existing WD when every (re-)joins. Is there any other circumstance in which the answer to the question ‘is a new charter a new WG?’ makes a material difference? > On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:46 , David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > OK, I can think of one material difference between what you wrote and what I wrote, but it’s pretty arcane. We should explore for more. I think this is an unlikely edge case, and would be fine with leaving it for a lawsuit to decide (if ever). > > > > > A group operates under charter A and produces Working Drafts for which the members have Exclusion Opportunities. > > The charter expires, and a new charter B is written which documents continuing work on those documents is in scope. > > Now, W3C Member Q, who was not a member of the WG under charter A, joins the WG under charter B, before that WG has produced any new Working Drafts. > > > > Does Q have an exclusion opportunity for the WDs produced under Charter A, and hence an agreement to license, or not? > > Under your interpretation, the answer is ‘yes’. Under mine, the answer is ‘no’. > > The question really is only relevant if one or more odd things happen: > * Q resigns before any WD is produced > * or there was material for which Q held IPR, in the earlier WDs from Charter A, that was removed in WDs made Charter B, that somehow made its way into the Recommendation. > > > Pretty obscure, I think. > > > David Singer > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. > > David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2015 23:04:27 UTC