Re: Fwd: Contributor License Agreement

On 11/05/11 13:42, Steven Rowat wrote:
> This is what I was assuming was happening in the web-payments lists. 
> You tell me below that this is not true, and your so-called public 
> list isn't public, really, it's only for those who sign the CLA,
> and, more to the point, there is no list that's public in the sense
> that the ODRL one is.

That's not what I said (or at least, that is certainly not what I meant
to imply).

The public list is for anybody from the public as well as those that
have signed the CLA. Everybody is on equal footing to discuss and
suggest changes to the specs.

This mailing list is public - anyone can join and discuss Web Payments
on here without agreeing to the CLA.

If someone wants to get their specific spec text into any of the specs
(verbatim), then they must agree to the CLA or the Editors cannot put
the spec text into the document (verbatim).

Alternatively, one can choose to not agree to the CLA and suggest a
change anyway, at which point an Editor will create some prose to
achieve the public commenter's request.

So, as I hope you can see - the public can contribute by just commenting
- no CLA necessary. However, if you want to add verbatim spec text,
please agree to the CLA so that we are reasonably covered against you
sneaking intellectual property (submarine patents, etc.) into the
specification.

The point I was making is this: Having multiple lists confuses people
and is a burden on those that are already subscribed to too many lists.

Many of the standards-making folks in this group are already signed up
to 20-50 mailing lists. Additionally, people coming in from the outside
world get confused as to which list they should join.

My suggestion was to just use one list - it's worked out well for a
variety of the other WGs that I've participated in. It also ensures that
everybody sees every part of the conversation. I have participated in a
number of Working Groups that kept multiple lists before and found it
incredibly difficult to keep track of what is being said where. We've
also found that some messages were lost for weeks because not everyone
was being good about checking all of the mailing lists associated with a
Working Group.

Let's start small and diversify as the community grows. I don't think
we're limiting anyone's freedoms by doing so.

> I feel your public-private list setup is fundamentally flawed and 
> needs to be re-formulated like the ODRL one.

Where is the flaw? Nobody is being forced to agree to the CLA to
contribute. The public is well represented as are various organizations.

Does that clear things up, Steven? Or are you still concerned about how
the mailing lists are structured?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Standardizing Payment Links
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/payment-links/

Received on Monday, 7 November 2011 19:30:32 UTC