A correction on what I said about how people could join this proposed task force. I had said that SVG WG members would not need to join the PFWG to participate. However, the proposed model is slightly different than what I was expecting. This would be a joint task force to develop the specs, and approval of both the SVG and PFWG would be required to publish. However, the actual publishing group would be the PFWG, and therefore the work would fall under the PFWG IP policy. This would mean that people would need to join the PFWG to participate in the task force, even if they are primarily there to represent SVG. Are there any concerns with this approach? It's an extra bit of bureaucracy for some, but maintains a more crystal-clear patent commitment, so removes one level of risk from the work. Michael On 28/03/2014 11:49 AM, Michael Cooper wrote: > We can set up a joint task force that allows people from SVG to join > the TF without joining PF. The task force work statement would > indicate that the work product is solely a deliverable of PF and under > its patent obligations. Members from SVG who cannot accept that can > decline to join the TF. Or if they want to formalize that they have > accepted putting the deliverable under the PF patent obligations, they > may choose to join PF even though it's not a requirement from our side > to join the task force. Michael > > On 28/03/2014 11:41 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: >> >> Dirk, Michael, >> >> The SVG working group resolved to have the this document be a PF >> document that would be worked on by a PF/SVG task force run in PF and >> fall under that IP policy. Would this require people who wanted to >> participate from SVG join PF? >> >> Rich >> >> >> Rich Schwerdtfeger >> >
Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 17:30:33 UTC