- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 15:56:29 -0500
- To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "lehors@us.ibm.com >> Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM" <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "Geoffrey Creighton (LCA)" <Geoffrey.Creighton@microsoft.com>
On 11/26/2014 12:24 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > > Several of us on the AB believe that we need to "detoxify" the > working relationship between people who prefer the WHATWG work mode > and those who see value in the outputs of the W3C process. We > acknowledge that W3C's traditional processes and policies -- at least > as they have been executed in practice -- have been part of the > problem. But none of these are carved in stone. If someone > identifies specific text in the member agreement or invited experts > agreement that makes effective collaboration harder, let's discuss > how to fix them. For starters, the The Invited Expert and Collaborator Agreement explicitly disallows «Branching», which I must say is pretty toxic position to take. Among other things, arguably that would disallow GitHub pull requests. While, as you say, "none of these are carved in stone", there seems to be extreme reluctance to proposing changes to the Invited Expert and Collaborator Agreement given how that discussion went last time. Despite that reluctance, I'm proposing that the W3C do exactly that: https://github.com/webspecs/url/blob/develop/docs/workmode.md#patent-policy I would suggest that getting participants to agree to make the necessary IPR commitments is an essential ingredient. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 8 December 2014 20:57:18 UTC