Re: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing? I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its own. Speaking as one of the W3C-editors of the spec: first I agree that crediting needs to be sorted out, and that Anne should be credited in a way that better reflects his contributions. I appreciate that Ms2ger points this out during the RfC. Secondly, I think it's a bit harsh to say that we take his work without his permission - legally I believe the WHATWG deliberately publishes under a licence that allows this, and on a moral and practical basis as W3C-editors intend to collaborate with Anne in the best possible way under a situation that's not really by our design, we involve him in discussions, appreciate his input, I've also sent pull requests on GitHub to keep the specs in sync and intend to continue to do so. I hope that claiming that we act without Anne's permission depicts a working environment that's less constructive than what we're both aiming for and achieving. -- Hallvord R. M. Steen Core tester, Opera Software
Re: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen hallv...@opera.com wrote: Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing? I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its own. Speaking as one of the W3C-editors of the spec: first I agree that crediting needs to be sorted out, and that Anne should be credited in a way that better reflects his contributions. I appreciate that Ms2ger points this out during the RfC. Secondly, I think it's a bit harsh to say that we take his work without his permission - legally I believe the WHATWG deliberately publishes under a licence that allows this, and on a moral and practical basis as W3C-editors intend to collaborate with Anne in the best possible way under a situation that's not really by our design, we involve him in discussions, appreciate his input, I've also sent pull requests on GitHub to keep the specs in sync and intend to continue to do so. I hope that claiming that we act without Anne's permission depicts a working environment that's less constructive than what we're both aiming for and achieving. I'm happy that you and Anne have a productive working relationship. My comment is based on this message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0538.html Perhaps I should have moved the phrase without his permission to the end of the sentence. Adam
Re: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
I would think that listing Anne as Editor or Former Editor and listing Anne in an Acknowledgments paragraph should be entirely consistent with all existing W3C practice. But it's not consistent with that existing W3C practice to get all the text for a spec from a document edited outside the WG. Hence, it's a fair suggestion that we have a new look at how authors and editors are credited. (Of course the current W3C-editors also intend to contribute whatever we can to the spec, test suite and process, and I think this discussion risks manufacturing a conflict that doesn't really exist.) -- Hallvord R. M. Steen Core tester, Opera Software
