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 17:25:52 -0700
Message-ID: <55232410.8090501@linux.intel.com>
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.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>

On 2015-04-06 16:38, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> Wayne,
> Why send a note to the AC? They are not making IPR commitments.

Actually, it is the  AC rep who makes IPR commitments for their employer 
in W3C whenever they join or put people in WGs -- but, it's fine with me 
to have this be a Director's decision.



> 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 Tuesday, 7 April 2015 00:26:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 7 April 2015 00:26:22 UTC