- From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 17:17:52 -0700
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Sending this in case it's something WebApps may be interested in. It's a Community Group Charter template [1] designed to create a Community Group that is used by a large Working Group like WebApps or CSS or DAP to do things like investigate areas that aren't ready for standardization. It would be like an incubator group for the Working Group. That can already be done in separate Community Groups unrelated to the Working Group (and that would continue). The only difference is that for this Community Group, the affiliated Working Group controls the Charter (and can ensure it has provisions that guarantee fairness) and the WG can direct what specs can be worked on in their affiliated Community Group. Someone who wants a spec to get into WebApps could approach the WG, and if the WG was interested, but not sure, it could ask them to do it in the affiliated CG. WG members who wanted to work on more exploratory work without having to license all the exploratory work could join the affiliated Community Group and opt-in to work on particular specs. (so it's one affiliated Community Group, potentially with dozens of incubator specs and participants explicitly opt-in to specs their employer's want them to work on). An affiliated CG like this could be a good place to start work on a risky spec that may not succeed. In a Community Group, patent licensing for one's own contributions happens right away (not when its finished) and the copyright license allows anyone to pick it up and work on it elsewhere, so if it fails, but some are interested, they can continue to work on it. It's more difficult to continue work elsewhere (like in a Community Group) when a WG spec fails. Just passing this on in case it is of interest. I also posted a couple of other templates for other types of Community Groups to the same list, both not directly affiliated with a WG. One is for potentially large number of specs or where the scope and deliverables are not clear and another one for a more focused Community Group that knows what specs it wants to produce (the current template on the CG site changed to use GitHub). For all of these, a goal is to have it be easier to get permission to join the Community Group because the scope is either clear or else obligations are per spec when you opt-in. [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-council/2015Mar/0012.html
Received on Sunday, 29 March 2015 00:18:21 UTC