[adding Mike] On 11/24/2014 12:59 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:30 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> I also don't see how Sam's proposal is >> different. > I believe the main difference with Sam's proposal compared to past > attempts is the sponsorship dimension, specifically the "No editing" > part. > > The W3C Membership agreement is talking about joint work developed > between the W3C hosts and the Member. But, in the case of no editing, I > wouldn't think that it applies. Yes, this is part of why I said earlier that Sam's proposal has several elements that seem to mean (AFAICT) that this is a workable solution. But it is complex, and there are similar situations that seem to conflict with existing agreements. So I respect Anne's desire to get complete clarify before we get started. As Anne said, getting a clear statement from W3C that there are no issues with Sam's approach is reasonable and necessary. Sam originally floated a proposal in his blog - but also suggested that he was open to proposal modifications. On one of the threads, Mike floated a joint repo idea. While this is attractive from the perspective of partnering; it is possible that it might stimulate some of the derivative spec issues which could potentially cause an issue (I say potentially because I don't know enough about the proposal yet to judge). At some point, the thread should coalesce down to a specific proposal that we all agree is the best approach (personally I thought Sam's was pretty close to the pin already). Once we have agreed on that - Anne is right - we should get a clear W3C formal statement that it works. AFAICT Sam's original proposal works and if we can agree to that - I'll be happy to take it to formal legal review. > > Philippe >Received on Monday, 24 November 2014 19:57:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:35:06 UTC