Re: on CGs incubating for a WG - was -> Re: Followup to "Supergroups" message to AC Forum from Florian Rivoal on 2016-06-26 (public-w3process@w3.org from June 2016)

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 14:57:43 +0900
To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <25E11E7A-C9D5-4871-9227-1E2B913E01EA@rivoal.net>

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 23:50, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Earlier in this discussion there was the objection to incubating in a CG and a proposal to doing incubation work (with no patent licensing commitments) in a WG because of concern a Community Group could run off on its own.  This proposal is to address that.

It does address that, but this is even more bureaucratic than a WG, and I think neither proponents of CGs for incubations nor proponents of keeping it all in WGs would be interested in such a convoluted arrangement.

 - Florian

Received on Sunday, 26 June 2016 05:58:12 UTC