Hi Shelly,
I'm not sure that the legal status of the groups can't be so easily
dismissed. Not in this particular instance, when we're no longer sure
who does have a right to lay claim to copyright of HTML5.
My point is solely that the legal status of a group is not necessary
in this case to ground the proposed action nor, afaict, is it
sufficient. It runs the risk of providing an overbroad rule that then
gets only applied in a single case.
It's not necessary because the relevant legal issues do not turn on
the legal status of the WHATWG (e.g., ownership of the spec text; the
WHATWG is not a candidate owner). It's not sufficient because I
presume that even if the WHATWG changed its legal status (which it
could easily do by incorporating in, say, the US or affiliating with
a host organization), that people would object to the denigrating
text (however accurate).
AFAIK, signing the membership agreement does not assign copyright to
the W3C for work done on W3C specs, but only licenses it:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#holds
So I believe your assertion to copyright ownership is incorrect.
It seems that your argument about whether certain classes of links to
the WHATWG specs and space are inappropriate or confusing are quite
independent of the precise organizational nature of the WHATWG. I.e.,
they are arguments about substance, the particular behavior of this
particular group, not form (i.e., that they are not incorporated).
I'm unclear whether you think that the W3C should adopt as a matter
of policy "no parallel specs with any external organization". That
*is* formal, but as we've really only had one case (though WS-I
profiling is an interestingly related case) and there's ample issues
to discuss there, I'd personally prefer to stick with the core
substantive issues. I would object to introducing new formal
constraints along the suggested lines because I can think of many
situations both historical and prospective where I don't want them in
place.
Cheers,
Bijan.
