Re: URL Collaboration Work

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 11/24/2014 10:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> The condition you're missing is that it would be the same person
>> editing the document. I cannot edit X inside and outside the W3C
>> simultaneously.
>
> That condition was not in your email.  Whether or not Jeff led you to
> believe this is in dispute.  Either way, I see nothing in the existing
> Membership or Invited Expert agreements that supports this claim.

"The Invited Expert agrees to refrain from creating derivative works
that include the Invited Expert's contributions when those derivative
works are likely to cause confusion about the status of the W3C work
or create risks of non-interoperability with a W3C Recommendation."

It's the very same reason we want the W3C to stop copying WHATWG
documents. However, putting legal boundaries in place would have
undesired side effects.

I could never find something similar in the W3C Member Agreement, but
Jeff and Wendy told me it came down to that.


>> Which is one of the now many reasons why the WHATWG
>> follows "Hypothetical" #1, without it really being hypothetical.
>
> I will now ask you for clarification as to what the other reasons are that
> the WHATWG would not be willing to collaborate on the URL Specification.

I can't spreak for the WHATWG. Personally I dislike the W3C Process,
its licensing practices, its many private activities, its forking
practices, its stale publication process that has caused countless
hours of productivity loss due to developers looking at the wrong
specification, its resistance to change, its management deferral to
surveys, the AC, and task forces when it comes to addressing hard
questions, and having to subscribe to two dozen mailing lists to
follow what is happening. Not sure this is exhaustive, there's other
things to do.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Monday, 24 November 2014 16:06:22 UTC