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

Re: Summarizing the state of Issue-152

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 16:17:53 -0700
Message-ID: <55231421.5030004@linux.intel.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>


On 2015-04-06 15:20, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
>> 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.)"
> Works for me.

And post a note to the AC that it's going to happen and one objection 
also means it goes to CR.  It could be quick - like 7 days.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 3:14 PM
> To: chaals@yandex-team.ru
> Cc: Wayne Carr; public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Summarizing the state of Issue-152
>
>
>> 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 23:18:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 6 April 2015 23:18:22 UTC