HTML Charter discussion

01 May 2013


(See HTML f2f minutes)
Paul, Sam, Maciej


<scribe> Scribe: Josh

HTML Charter discussion

plh: we sent the charter for review to the members
... the charter review ended on Mar 12
... we received several comments
... most were "if you tweak here, that'd make us happy"
... we agreed with making those changes already
... one comment related to the debate 2 years ago re: the document license
... some contributors wanted to work with a more open license
... the PSIG (Patent and Standards Interest Group)
... has been working on a proposal for a new license
... the HTML WG was interested in having a license that was interested in approach more open than PSIG
... the proposal from this member was to allow HTML extensions specs to use an open license
... W3 Staff looked into that
... the director is interested in an experimentation to have a more open license for html extensions
... we've been looking into that for the past 6 weeks
... for text in the HTML charter to allow items to be used with a more open license
... we aren't done with the decisions about who can use/who can make a decision
... then we'd need to send this back to the AC for a new review
... we don't believe we can make the change w/o review
... we'll send the changes back to the AC for review again
... that means we don't have a charter
... the current charter doesn't expire until 2014

paulc: current draft or current charter?

plh: current charter
... we're working on a new charter, not because of the deadline
... but because of a need for a new charter
... the group has changed since 2007
... the new charter length is 2 years

rubys: that's when 5.1 is supposed to be done

paulc: do you want questions?

plh: sure

paulc: do you want to show them the text?

plh: no, the text isn't finalized

chaals: i have a question
... is the idea that
... i write an extension spec
... i put it under some open license
... tantek writes an extension under a closed license
... or is the idea
... stevef proposes an extension spec
... and HTMLWG votes on the license

plh: it's a WG decision

darobin: is it proposed by the editor?

plh: anyone can propose the license for a given spec
... we believe it should be a WG decision
... consideration is "when should a WG make a decision"
... to classes
... 1. existing documents
... 2. new documents
... want to avoid, working for two years on a doc
... then WG changes
... and then change the license
... want to level the playing field
... this is only for extension documents within the HTML WG
... we don't expect to have a perfect process
... try to make the process as minimal as possible, to make it really simple

tantek: it sounds like
... and editor that proposes a new extension specification
... could say "i want to propose this with an open license"
... potentially an editor of an existing extension specification
... could propose "i want to change this to an open license"
... sounds like Mozilla would support this

chaals: reduce process
... getting WG to decide on a license is probably not the best way
... what happens when you want to incorporate spec into HTML document?
... do you make one way incorporation
... and apply HTML license

plh: correct
... but the extension is still available under its original license
... but future updates only done on HTML document
... would keep the HTML license

darobin: you could keep extension license and go to REC

tantek: perhaps the climate around HTML license could change over 2 years
... i haven't seen anything folded in under 2 years

[ <main> has ]

paulc: longdesc has
... ruby may soon

tantek: in general, it takes a long time to incorporate in the process

darobin: extension specs have only been around for 6 months

hober: arguably for longer, without a name

paulc: we had 11 UCs, which of those cases will this process cover?

plh: all of them

paulc: 2 allow forking if w3 disappears
... one allows regardless of w3

plh: current thinking is CC-by-attribution

paulc: what do you do when you present to AC
... and get a formal objection?

plh: we'll do something based on the objection

paulc: the last time you went to AC
... 80% objected to forking

MikeSmith: not accurate

darobin: number of respondents is 5%

paulc: i mean of the respondents

[ laughter ]

tantek: no idea how AC works

paulc: plh, you said we can continue w/ our current charter
... i suppose that's a not a problem for us

plh: not a problem for the WG, no
... for us (Staff), yes
... We have feedback from some of our members concerned about this
... we're not excluding the possibility that we'll have a strong formal objection to experimentation

paulc: anything else?

plh: no, that's all on the charter

chaals: what's the prognosis of this spreading through the W3
... i have the item to revise the WebApps charter
... it would be naive to the point of stupid
... not to expect a similar comment on the charter
... and WebApps has more urgency to revise its charter

plh: getting a bit ahead of myself here
... want to look at this on a case by case basis

chaals: when i ask you this tomorrow morning
... i expect you to think about it

tantek: what's your intent

chaals: i believe it's on the agenda to revise the current charter
... i intend for plh to anticipate the question

plh: and you expect me to answer

paulc: take that offline

jeff: i was on the queue to address the offline point
... with the chair's permission
... the license issue is somewhat orthogonal to the webapps charter
... you can proceed w/ the webapps charter for some time
... by the time you put the webapps charter to the A
... we'll have the response from the AC to HTML

chaals: it'll take me a day to put it together

plh: it'll take me a long time to put it to the AC

paulc: when you get W3M concurrence to go to the AC with this
... will you inform the html-admin

plh: yes

paulc: the charter to send to AC will be publicly visible?

plh: yes

paulc: so it would be good to send a note to members
... to talk to their AC rep

jeff: at that point, these embargoed minutes to be unembargoed

paulc: ok, so that email to html-admin is when these minutes can be folded in

chaals: there are various alternative proposals for licenses
... that meet some but not all
... is there any sense of allowing people to choose other licenses
... than the w3c hide-bound-dinosaur-era-license
... or the wonderful cc-by
... is there anything for an intermediate license?

plh: we're thinking of a restricted set of licenses for the experiment

jeff: there's also the PSIG created "PSIG license"
... which is more permissive than the current W3 license
... the AB has been
... encouraging us to make that available as well

paulc: under that license
... the PSIG license, did it meet 11 UCs?

chaals: no, it doesn't allow forking

plh: it met 9 of them

tantek: where's chaals

[ chaals is behind tantek ]

tantek: on the question of licenses to use
... mozilla supports using standard open licenses
... rather than creating new licenses

chaals: "don't fork the license"

tantek: you can fork cc-by, but no one will use it
... we'd prefer to reuse existing standard open licenses
... that are more well understood by the community

paulc: i think that's a response to the AC discussion

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.134 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-05-01 21:01:37 $