- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:46:07 -0400
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Message-ID: <51E040DF.5090502@w3.org>
On 7/12/2013 1:36 PM, Alex Russell wrote: > Thanks for responding, Jeff. I know your time is limited. My time is unlimited if it involves supporting you, Anne, or the TAG. > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org > <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote: > > On 7/12/2013 10:01 AM, Alex Russell wrote: >> Hi Jeff, >> >> We have a problem and I understand that you -- and pretty much >> nobody else -- can solve it. That might be mistaken, as might my >> understanding of the whole situation, but that's because there's >> little I can find to outline the thinking behind the problem: >> Anne van Kesteren is /*not allowed to edit the W3C DOM spec!?!?*/ >> >> This despite being employed by a member organization in good >> standing, his long service as an even-handed arbiter of technical >> disputes, and previous (generally praised) editorship of the DOM >> spec. >> >> Indeed, it's safe to say that Anne//is the only editor of the DOM >> spec who has poured significant time into the maintenance of the >> W3C version of the spec. >> >> I understand -- but can find no discussion in public or member >> space, why is that? -- that this comes down to Anne /also >> /editing the DOM spec at the WHATWG. >> >> This leads to the situation in which the most competent, >> reasonable, invested person in a core web spec is, through your >> action, > > Reading subsequent posts on this thread, this appears to be a > complication related to the pre-existing W3C Invited Expert > agreement, which indeed looks complex. > > It is unclear to me what action I've taken personally to make Anne > unable to work on this document. > > > It may not have been your action that created the situation, but only > you can undo it, it seems. > > Unless you mean that I've not changed this agreement or not > changed the W3C document license. I am not empowered to changes > these agreements unilaterally - although as you know - we are > trying hard to gain consensus to liberalize both the W3C General > Document License as well as the license for HTML5 extension > specifications. > > > If I'm following the document chain correctly, this is the operable > paragraph from the Document License > <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231>: > > No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents > is granted pursuant to this license. However, if additional > requirements (documented in the Copyright FAQ > <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ>) are satisfied, the > right to create modifications or derivatives is sometimes granted > by the W3C to individuals complying with those requirements. > > > The FAQ adds restrictions > <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620>, summarized by: > > To request permission to create such a work, please inform the W3C > of your intention by sending an message in English to > site-policy@w3.org <mailto:site-policy@w3.org> and — if provided — > the comments email list associated with that document. In your > message, state that you agree to the following terms ... > > ...In the annotated version, you must include the following > information: > > 1. a statement that the resulting display or document is an > annotation and the W3C is not responsible for any content not > found at the original URL and that any annotations are > non-normative. > 2. a reference to the original document > > This disclosure should be made in a prominent location...It is > important that no changes in meaning be made to any part of the > W3C document including the Status Section, contributors, or > appendices. If comments or annotations are absolutely necessary > within the content of the specification, those annotations must be > /clearly/ represented as such. (example > <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/translation-example.html>) > > > This appears to be an escape hatch which can be used to give Anne > permission to work on DOM at WHATWG. Would you consent to it if he asked? First, if Anne has a request, I would like to hear his request. I don't want to hypothetically guess his request and respond to all possible interpretations. I'd also need to ask legal what the terms mean. I'm not a lawyer so I don't fully understand all the terms. For example, what you cited above requires the WHAT WG to state that their document is a non-normative annotation. What would that mean? What copyright would be associated with the resultant document (W3C would say not a pure forking license because then the next person can fork it without permission)? Would WHAT WG even agree to this? >> unable to help evolve it. This might not be fatal for the lack >> of others doing work in this area at the W3C, but that's where >> we're at: blocked on doing substantive discussion of important >> new features (currently Promises, soon Streams) among members who >> which to use the W3C and functioning WGs to convene technical >> work under W3C rules. >> >> This situation is intolerable. > > I agree that it would be desirable for Anne to work on the DOM spec. > >> Looking forward to a response at your earliest convenience. >> >> Regards > >
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 17:46:15 UTC