OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xml-dev] More patent funnies!

I agree to most of that.  But does vendor neutral 
mean vendors collectively and by consensus can  
choose a patented technology?  Of course they can.  

Under what conditions will they?  That is the nut of it.

The W3C has a charter, it has members 
and it has policies to govern its actions and 
its decisions.  That the members act in 
accordance with a broader goal, a moral goal, 
this is certainly good for its reputation, it is 
good for them.  No argument. Acting in accordance with 
policy is a requirement of membership.  These are 
not the same thing.

Can one choose one's action by the actions of others?  If one 
understands those actions, yes.  But authority 
to ajudicate the morals of others, that we do not have 
in our persons or in the W3C.  

We should not require Berners-Lee to be our conscience. 
I can think of no more punishing act than to think 
or act as if he should be.  Don't condemm him to be Beckett.

Megginson said such comments are pernicious.  I believe 
it to be exactly the opposite:  to ask that of one man is 
itself, pernicious.  And dumb.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Ancona [mailto:scarhill@yahoo.com]

--- "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> wrote:
> Do vendors get to choose the best interests of the vendor(s)? 

Ultimately, of course they do. And if W3C's mission statement said, "W3C
solely to serve the propietary interests of its members", the rest of us
take that into account, and act accordingly. 

But that's not the claim. W3C says its process is organized according to

1. Vendor Neutrality
2. Coordination
3. Consensus

The vendor neutrality principle doesn't say that it only applies to members,
vendors who sell their software, or those with large patent portfolios.

The consensus principle says, "Consensus is one of the most important
principles by which W3C operates. When resolving issues and making
W3C strives to achieve unanimity of opinion. Where unanimity is not
W3C reaches decisions by considering the ideas and viewpoints of all
participants, whether W3C Members, invited experts, or the general

It's pretty clear at this point that there is no consensus on RAND. So if
goes ahead with it, pehaps the rest of us should consider whether the W3C's
mission statement is still valid, and what authority they then may claim to
"standards" for the web.

The W3C shouldn't be able to have it both ways. It can be a consortium of
vendors, out to serve only their own interests, or it can be a
organization that attempts to represent the broader interests of all
participants. It is only by claiming to be the latter (and by Tim B-L's
as inventor of the web) that W3C has any moral authority or mandate.

So you're right. W3C doesn't HAVE to conform to its own principles. It can
solely in its members' best interests. If that happens, all I would ask is
the rest of us don't condone the hypocrisy by pretending that those
were never stated, and that the hypocrisy doesn't exist.