- From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:36:04 -0700
- To: www-archive@w3.org
-public-html, +www-archive Hi Steve, You wrote: >> [I]t has quickly beome clear that the [WHATCG] is only a[…] mechanism >> by which the WHATWG can publish specs with a patent policy. Silvia replied: > IIUC it provides for a legally clean contribution path of WHATWG > specifications into the W3C. Since that means that the wider community > - i.e. those that cannot become a member of the W3C - can continue > providing input into the specification, I think there's a clear > advantage to having that CG. Indeed. Some aspects of the WHATWG have meant that some felt unable to belong and contribute. I really hope that the firmer foundation offered by this Community Group mean that more people feel able, or even inspired, to join. >> Your statement: "reunifying development of the open Web platform >> under the stewardship of the W3C." appears false as it does nothing >> to bridge the gap between the HTML standards development communities >> at the W3C and WHATWG. On the contrary, this is a concrete and welcome step to help the various communities work more closely together. > It would be nice if the WHATWG mailing list could just be the WHATCG > mailing list, including all the legalese around it, but I assume > that's not so easy to do and may take some time. Community Groups for pre-existing communities may continue to use the community's existing infrastructure (mailing lists, wikis, irc channels, etc.) so long as that infrastructure meets certain requirements in the CG. See the second paragraph of http://www.w3.org/community/about/ and this part of the FAQ: http://www.w3.org./community/about/faq/#can-a-community-group-use-its-own-infrastructure-not-hosted-by-w3c I don't see how we would benefit from changing mailing lists, wiki software, etc. After all, cool URIs don't change. Ted
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 17:36:59 UTC