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

RE: Summarizing the state of Issue-152

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 23:38:20 +0000
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "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>
Message-ID: <BN1PR0201MB0802F22F14CF96E77DB758DAAEFE0@BN1PR0201MB0802.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Wayne,
Why send a note to the AC? They are not making IPR commitments.
And, if you send a note, why establish a different period for action? Currently, I believe that the shortest AC response time is for a request to appeal an announced decision and that is three weeks. (See 8.2 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/68f2be460152/cover.html#ACAppeal.) These periods have been long to take cognizance of people having vacations and other commitments.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 4:18 PM
> To: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH); David Singer; chaals@yandex-
> team.ru
> Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Summarizing the state of Issue-152
> 
> 
> 
> 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 23:38:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 6 April 2015 23:38:48 UTC