W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Summarizing the state of Issue-152

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:14:25 -0700
Cc: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <FB9AC771-20F9-4ECB-AFBA-61AA5D913FBC@apple.com>
To: chaals@yandex-team.ru

> On Apr 6, 2015, at 14:57 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> 
> If something is added that turns out not to be editorial, and a case comes up, there is *no* protection in the patent policy against a poor decision.

If this is clear (that the IPR commitments are to the last thing someone had an exclusion opportunity on, which is something I have always pushed for) then we’re good to go with a thumping big warning to the WG that editorial changes mean just that, and if they inadvertently (or deliberately) entangle IPR, the IPR owner, EVEN IF a member of the WG, is not under any licensing obligation.

Having a 60-day ‘if you think this is non-editorial, speak up’ is pointless.  One may as well have a 60-day exclusion opp. and be done.

A 60-day delay for publishing an edited document looks long and heavy (though it’s not really).

So, I would be OK with ‘The decision that a revision is purely editorial must be made by the WG without dissent (i.e. abstention or failing to indicate is OK, but a single voice saying “oh not it isn’t” is enough to force CR publication and exclusion opps.)"

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 6 April 2015 22:14:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 6 April 2015 22:14:55 UTC