Re: [w3c/charter-html] Charter must state a reason when duplicating work done elsewhere (#139)

@MichaelChampion:
>I had let hope overrule experience in my suggestion to make a conciliatory gesture with a respectful reference to the upstream WHATWG specs and a statement of what additional value W3C hoped to add. Given that one of the chairs doesn't even agree that the WHATWG specs are upstream, and disagrees with the widespread belief that the primary value add comes from the patent commitments, I doubt if @frivoal's issue can be resolved in this charter.>

We haven't given up yet. Let's make this work if we can.

The WebPlat chairs and team discussed this today, and I agreed to take another run at finding some words that took into account everyone's comments. Here they are:
"The Web Platform WG and the WHAT WG both produce versions of the HTML specification. The Web Platform WG works on the HTML specification for many reasons, including:
* The HTML specification is protected under the W3C Patent Policy, ensuring that HTML remains royalty free for use by implementors and authors;
* The HTML specification is developed with contributions from a broad range of stakeholders including implementors and authors, as well as specialists in accessibility, internationalisation, privacy, and security;
* The HTML specification is produced by a globally recognised standards organization, with a governance model that is designed to find consensus amongst the many diverse constituents of the web platform."

I've tried to find words that encompass the most likely reasons people choose to work on HTML at W3C, but which do not (I hope) reopen old wounds. It would afterall be a good thing if we could find a way for W3C and WHAT WG to work together again in the future.

All that said, we don't want to hold up this charter review any longer than we have to. Most importantly, we don't want to hold up the people who want to get work done.

Unless there are strenuous and tangible objections to the proposed text, I suggest we include it in the charter and get it out to the AC for review?

@frivoal thanks for spotting the other issue. I think it was an oversight, but will look into it and either reinstate it or provide a rationale.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/139#issuecomment-303525744