- From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:28:57 -0700
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: Virginia Fournier <vfournier@apple.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
It’s kinda odd. W3C is the only org I know that uses the MOU term. I am much more familiar with liaison requests and liaisons. > On Aug 15, 2016, at 12:17 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > > All good points. > > Just fyi, I believe that the intent is to get Member review for binding documents - but to get the input early when it is still in the MOU phase. > > Jeff > > > On 8/15/2016 2:13 PM, Virginia Fournier wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> From a legal perspective, an MOU and an agreement are not the same thing. An agreement is a binding document that memorializes the parties’ legal obligations. An MOU is a document that is usually non-binding and memorializes the parties’ intent. So defining an MOU as a “formal agreement” and/or “contractual framework” could be quite confusing. >> >> Since you reference rights and obligations, confidentiality, and IPR, it sounds like you are talking about a binding agreement. So, my suggestion is that this type of agreement be called something other than an MOU. Perhaps “Liaison Agreement”? >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Virginia Fournier >> Senior Standards Counsel >> Apple Inc. >> ☏ 669-227-9595 >> ✉︎ vmf@apple.com >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 14, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/14/2016 8:07 AM, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> w3process-ISSUE-172 (Define MoU): What is a "Memorandum of Understanding"? [Process Document] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/172 >>> >>> Raised by: Charles McCathie Nevile >>> On product: Process Document >>> >>> This is raised on behalf of Daniel Dardailler. >>> >>> Request: >>> - provide a definition for our use of the term "Memorandum of >>> Understanding (MoU)" in the Liaisons section. >>> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#Liaisons >>> >>> >>> Rationales: >>> - the Team is often asked to sign "MoUs" with other organizations >>> that are just simple liaisons from our point of view, that is, they do >>> not justify Member review, but because the other parties call them >>> "MoU", and insist on doing so, we are often in an unclear situation (is >>> it a "real" MoU ? should we inform our members ?). >>> >>> - MoU is as good as any other similar name like "Agreement" or >>> "Partnership", "Formal liaison", so we only need to provide details for >>> our own meaning of the term, and need not to change it. >>> >>> >>> Proposed modification: >>> - no change to the text using the term MoU, only make the term a link >>> to a new definition entry, that can be added elsewhere >>> >>> - Suggested new definition: >>> >>> "In the context of the W3C Process, an MoU is a formal agreement, >>> i.e. a contractual framework with W3C rights and obligations, that >>> involves joint deliverables, an agreed share of technical >>> responsibilities with due coordination, and/or considerations for >>> confidentiality and specific IPR. >> Most of this sounds good to me. But the "or" clause might mean that if we go visit a Member and they require an NDA by their process (even if there is no exchange of information) that it would require Member approval. So we may need to tweak this a bit. >> >>> The agreement may actually be called >>> something else that an MoU, and something called an MoU may not be a W3C >>> MoU in that sense. >>> >>> - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016May/0034.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Dave Singer singer@mac.com
Received on Monday, 15 August 2016 20:29:25 UTC