- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:03:39 +0200
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- CC: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tcelik@mozilla.com>
On 15/07/2013 16:39 , Jeff Jaffe wrote: > On 7/15/2013 7:04 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: >> So to bring this all back on topic for this list, maybe the TAG should >> issue a short position statement indicating how open licensing is core >> to the web's values and essential to its continued development. > > The scope statement of the TAG is: > > "The TAG's scope is limited to technical issues about Web architecture. > The TAG should not consider administrative, process, or organizational > policy issues of W3C, which are generally addressed by the W3C Advisory > Committee, Advisory Board, and Team." > > If the TAG wishes to comment on open licensing (which imho is not a > technical issue about Web architecture) I recommend that it first > request the Director to expand its charter scope. I am well aware, which is why I didn't suggest a finding. When the TAG sees an organisational issue that has a bearing on the well-being of the web as a whole there is however precedent for it to pick up the matter (e.g. the issue of "stable references" between specifications). The eventual decision falls with the AB, AC, and Director, but since this issues does have a bearing on technical side, I wouldn't find it extracurricular for the TAG to file some manner of Amicus Brief on the matter. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 15 July 2013 15:03:54 UTC