New standards task force

Where we are

- proposals need to be solid by 20 sep

If you want to reread and point out holes/weaknesses, please do

IPR bits

http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community#ipr

IJ: intends to work on editing the "requirements" section.

http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community#ipr

Mike: too complicated
... the use case of people walking away...is the source of a lot of the complexity
... the advantage of the owa model is that the community does what it does and patent lawyers look at it at the end.
... sure there's the submarine situation, but life is like that.

Arnaud: Do we have examples of specs that have been fully completed (e.g., under OWFa) where people's organizations have signed up at the end?

Larry: Yes, there's a list of those at the owf web site (companies who've made such commitments)
... THere is a patent commitment that becomes irrecovable after 45 days associated with the contributor agreement.
... The CLA is signed up front.

Mike: So you can't contribute your bit of IP and then walk away.

Larry: Your commitment is related to your own contribution
... at the end of the process when the OWF is signed, the contribution is for the entire spec.

Arnaud: What we agree on (I'm hearing):

- we should have small barrier up front to participation

- you can raise questions with the PSIG

Mike: It's a good requirement that someone can't come in and contribute IP and then walk away
... what about the strawman proposal that comm groups that do specs operate under CLA and OWFa?

[Question of spec transition to rec track[

Mike: I don't think you shoudl use the IPR policy to add value.

IJ: I am trying provide some protection in community land and motivation to move to rec track

Mike: You should focus on adding value and not adding process complexity.

Arnaud: The "more certainty" is consensus around decisions.

Mike: The community has non-assert from community that created it.

Arnaud: I agree with Mike that the value add is probably not there. The difference is in the level of endorsement.
... the value is in the level of endorsement (small community, w3c community, international community [ipr])
... the value is not in the additional IPR commitments.

lrosen: the owfa agreement would satisfy the w3c patent policy on its own

[w3c patent policy has a promise for a license]

lrosen: there are some bonuses for the formal track....at least I think they add value
... the brand does add value; it means something important
... I expect that over time the community groups would learn to do things in a w3c way

Arnaud: I think it comes down to level of endorsement.

(govts like to rely on specs from organizations they are familiar with)

Arnaud: I don't think the "RF commitment" bit alone will drive people to use the rec track, but it does add to a broader set of values

lrosen: I'd like to also suggest that the real value of w3c is probably not in the individual specs (which could be done in any number of fora)
... the real value is that, as a Member of w3c, you get opportunities to sponsor work and create a direction for the organization
... to focus w3c on certain kinds of community groups rather than others.

Summarize some key points:

- avoid submarine case is lower priority

- keep it simple

- don't try to preserve "IPR value" or rec above all else; the value proposition for the rec track lies elsewhere (or at least not entirely with the rf commitments)

IJ: What gating, if any when you make the transition to WG

[not discussed yet]

lrosen: To contribute to an apache project, you sign a collaborative agreement. So there's value from the set of those agreements (both individual and company)
... there's also value to the definition of a set of processes
... so, e.g., you can release some code unless there's a vote among contributors
... so there is a certain amount of bureaucray but the board puts those processes in place and steps back

Arnaud: what does OWFa bring that the CLA doesn't bring?

lrosen: OWFA is for "final" specs (for some definition of "final").

[discussion of people not signing owfa at the end]

Arnaud: I'll reply what I heard:

- cla is limited to contribution

- you expand your commitment to the whole spec at the end.

- in w3c we avoid the sign-off at the end

Review current status of developer portal proposal

http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community#portal

Review current status of infrastructure requirements

http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community#infrastructure

Next meeting

IJ: May not convene a call unless really necessary

Arnaud: I think it's better to schedule a call early to get people to block off time