[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
