Re: [w3c/editing] CFC: Move ExecCommand to WICG (#185)

>> This claim is not supported by evidence. The Working Group works in public, and accepts comments from the general public. I have seen no evidence in practice that moving a spec to WICG enabled broader participation.

> So you are tracking every single repository in the WICG then? :) I kindly ask that you don't conflate your personal experience "no evidence" - just because you didn't see it, it doesn't make it not true. There is plenty of participation in both discourse and in the of repos.

I don't claim that things in WICG don't get participation. Certainly a number of them do. I don't dispute that it is possible to have a vibrant community in WICG. I do dispute that moving to WICG will, in itself, "enable more input from the developer community".

I don't think this has been the main reason behind the proposal to move, but if we're going to claim that a reason to move a spec from some place to WICG is because that will grow the community, then the burden of proof is on those who ask for the change of venue on these grounds.

> Has there been any? If there has been then that would be in violation of the W3C Process.

No, there hasn't. That's what I'm saying. So far, as far as I know, we don't know of anyone who wanted to or attempted to propose a normative change, and couldn't due to not being a member. An for any other type of participation, any github repo is as easy to participate to as any other.

> Sure, but again, the community needs to be built. I hold that it's much more difficult to build the community here.

Given that the task force already involves all browsers and all major javascript based editors, the difficulty of building the here is irrelevant: it has already been built. (although I still contend that if the ease of building communities is going to be relevant, those asking for a change against the status quo need to back up claims).

> The spec could continue to live in the repository, it's just governed by a different IPR policy. Right now, it has zero IPR policy or protection - it's an unpublished Unofficial draft

RIght, the IPR angle is a bit annoying. I think that it is a problem that work artefacts of WGs that don't get to REC (either because they're slow, or notes, or fail before REC, or whatever) have no IPR protection is a problem. I'll try to push at the AB level so that the "immediate patent commitment on your own contributions" IPR regime current found in CGs is extended to pre-REC / non-REC work products of WGs. This might take a while though :)

In the short term, for this spec, it won't make much of a difference either way: the document was produced outside of a CG, and is hardly receiving new contributions. The part of the spec that would be covered by the CG IPR regime would therefore be null or negligible. 

-- 
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/editing/issues/185#issuecomment-438547764