I’ve had recent discussions with a handful of different chairs and editors and some other Working Group key members, to try to identify what specific things they want to get from the W3C — in other words, their reasons for choosing to do their work at the W3C, rather than somewhere else.
So the three high-level goals that this patch adds to the Introduction section represent the three key reasons that those people have actually expressed to me for choosing the W3C as the home for their work.
The “Enable Working Groups to publish their Technical Reports (that is, their specifications and guidelines) on the W3C’s Technical Reports page” goal may seem like something obvious that’s not necessary to state — but it is in fact the main reason that some people have told me they’ve chosen the W3C.
Specifically, some have said — for better or worse — that they don’t care about the getting the RF licensing commitments, and they don’t care about getting the endorsement of the W3C and the Membership for their specs.
Those people seem to see having a spec published with a W3C URL as a carrying more authority than a spec published elsewhere — greater market recognition (or however would be a good way to word it).
But some other people have said they (and their companies, and their companies’ lawyers…) do place very great value on getting the RF licensing commitments at the W3C. (And incidentally, some have said they believe the RF licensing commitments and disclosure obligations that can be secured at the W3C are much stronger than any that they might get by publishing their specs elsewhere).
Anyway, I hope all that helps to clarify the context for this PR.
I’ve had recent discussions with a handful of different chairs and editors and some other Working Group key members, to try to identify what specific things they want to get from the W3C — in other words, their reasons for choosing to do their work at the W3C, rather than somewhere else.
So the three high-level goals that this patch adds to the Introduction section represent the three key reasons that those people have actually expressed to me for choosing the W3C as the home for their work.
The “Enable Working Groups to publish their Technical Reports (that is, their specifications and guidelines) on the W3C’s Technical Reports page” goal may seem like something obvious that’s not necessary to state — but it is in fact the main reason that some people have told me they’ve chosen the W3C.
Specifically, some have said — for better or worse — that they don’t care about the getting the RF licensing commitments, and they don’t care about getting the endorsement of the W3C and the Membership for their specs.
Those people seem to see having a spec published with a W3C URL as a carrying more authority than a spec published elsewhere — greater market recognition (or however would be a good way to word it).
But some other people have said they (and their companies, and their companies’ lawyers…) do place very great value on getting the RF licensing commitments at the W3C. (And incidentally, some have said they believe the RF licensing commitments and disclosure obligations that can be secured at the W3C are much stronger than any that they might get by publishing their specs elsewhere).
Anyway, I hope all that helps to clarify the context for this PR.
Preview | Diff