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

RE: Review comments on 3 March 2015 Process Editor's draft

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:09:36 +0000
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "W3C Process Community Group" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN1PR0201MB0802EADD063F79981671A50AAE030@BN1PR0201MB0802.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:10 PM
> To: David Singer
> Cc: Stephen Zilles; Charles McCathieNevile; W3C Process Community Group
> Subject: Re: Review comments on 3 March 2015 Process Editor's draft
[SZ] [SNIP] (and David Singer is ">>"
> > I think if we can get to the point where groups never have expired charters,
> it will be easy but irrelevant to say what is and is not allowed under those
> circumstances.
> 
> That's why I'd like it in the process that the WG closes when the charter
> expires.  Seems there's no reason why it needs to expire rather than a short
> extension.  I'd rather have it clear if the charter expires the WG is closed.
[SZ] The problem with saying the WG is closed is that there are IPR considerations that are far from clear when a WG closes. We currently have a discussion as to whether re-chartering a WG creates a new WG or continues the existing WG. Any patent commitments that have been made clearly depend on the resolution of this discussion. The PSIG has been unable to resolve this issue, but adopting what you propose would IMHO push the conclusion in the wrong direction. I think that is why the AB has been looking at less drastic penalties for failing to re-charter. 

Steve Zilles
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 04:10:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 March 2015 04:10:06 UTC