The W3C mission statement asserts that "By promoting interoperability and encouraging an open forum for discussion, W3C commits to leading the technical evolution of the Web." I expect the consortium recognizes that the web's technical evolution also involves the legal and political environment it develops in.
As such, is the W3C committed to leading the evolution of these non-technical aspects of the web to ensure that the web develops towards W3C goals (including universal access, interoperability, and decentralization)? Or, as the proposed RAND policy indicates, does the consortium abdicate its leadership role in the relevant social/political arena and accept the "industry" status quo, especially on something as important as the treatment of intellectual property in standards?
If you believe the W3C does have a leadership role to play beyond mere technical specifications, how does the proposed RAND policy fit with the all of the consortium's goals for the evolution of the web?
Slashdot Mirror
The W3C mission statement asserts that "By promoting interoperability and encouraging an open forum for discussion, W3C commits to leading the technical evolution of the Web." I expect the consortium recognizes that the web's technical evolution also involves the legal and political environment it develops in.
As such, is the W3C committed to leading the evolution of these non-technical aspects of the web to ensure that the web develops towards W3C goals (including universal access, interoperability, and decentralization)? Or, as the proposed RAND policy indicates, does the consortium abdicate its leadership role in the relevant social/political arena and accept the "industry" status quo, especially on something as important as the treatment of intellectual property in standards?
If you believe the W3C does have a leadership role to play beyond mere technical specifications, how does the proposed RAND policy fit with the all of the consortium's goals for the evolution of the web?