Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

Hi all,

In an ideal world, Anne would be the editor of the W3C version of the spec
and that would be the end of it. Such is not the case. Anne is not the
editor of the W3C version: he doesn't edit and/or publish anything related
to the W3C XHR spec. Current editors do and while it's mostly brain-dead
copy/paste, some decisions (especially regarding spec merging) are to be
made W3C-side. Current editors also act as first-level reviewers and
actually give Anne feedback.

To be honest, I hate this situation. As far as I'm concerned, Anne *is* the
author of the XHR spec but, AFAIK, there is no standardized way to
acknowledge this in W3C documents nor does the WHATWG Licensing makes it
mandatory. As a side note, as an open source developper, I can understand
why. If the specs are on public repos and accept pull requests (or diffs,
or whatever), then the very notion of authorship becomes a bit blurry.

Anyway, I'm one of the co-editor of the W3C XHR spec and I don't claim to
be the author of anything in the spec. I'm more interested in pushing the
spec forward than achieving glory. I accepted the co-editor position to
help because help was needed. So while I empathize with the whole "W3C
plagiarizes WHATWG" outrage, could this conversation be held where it
belongs? That is far upper the food chain than this WG.

Now, that being said and seeing as we cannot put Anne as an editor of the
W3C version of the spec (because, technically, he's not). How do you guys
suggest we go about acknowledging the WHATWG source? Where in the spec?
How? With what kind of wording?

-- Julian Aubourg


On 23 November 2012 17:36, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> >> >> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
> >> >> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using
> the
> >> >> WD template) as the basis
> >> >> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>.
> >> >>
> >> >> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
> >> >> WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of
> the
> >> >> WD.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please
> reply
> >> >> to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
> >> >>
> >> >> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
> >> >> will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
> >> >
> >> > I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical
> spec
> >> > on
> >> > whatwg.org.
> >>
> >> I agree.  The W3C should not be in the business of plagiarizing the
> >> work of others.
> >
> > Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing?
>
> I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is
> taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its
> own.  That is plagiarism, and we should not do it.
>
> >> plagiarism. n. The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and
> >> passing them off as one's own.
> >>
> >> The Status of this Document section should state clearly that this
> >> document is not an original work of authorship of the W3C.
> >
> > The SotD section need only refer to the working group that produced the
> > document. Authorship is not noted or tracked in W3C documents.
> >
> > If Anne's work was submitted to and prepared in the context of the
> WebApps
> > WG, then it is a product of the WG, and there is no obligation to refer
> to
> > other, prior or variant versions.
> >
> > Referring to an earlier, draft version published outside of the W3C
> process
> > does not serve any purpose nor is it required by the W3C Process.
>
> Legally, we are under no obligation to acknowledge Anne's work.
> However, we should be honest about the origin of the text and not try
> to pass off Anne's work as our own.
>
> More pointedly: plagiarism is not illegal but that doesn't mean we should
> do it.
>
> > If there is a question on the status of the Copyright declaration of the
> > material or its origin, then that should be taken up by the W3C Pubs
> team.
>
> My concern is not about copyright.  My concern is about passing off
> Anne's work as our own.
>
> Adam
>
>