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 17:29:40 -0700
Cc: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <97EC4FD2-509C-4C91-B746-400AB472943C@apple.com>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
If we find we have a problem, we can (with some trouble) revise again, which includes reversal.  I think it’s rare enough that if it is painful, we reverse.

> On Apr 6, 2015, at 17:25 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 00:30:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 7 April 2015 00:30:10 UTC