<scribe> Scribe: Josh
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