W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2016

Re: Comments on Process 2016 (3 August 2016 Editor's Draft)

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 17:52:05 -0700
Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <20AD3498-6C7D-4496-8144-62D463E248EF@apple.com>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
I am happy to think about it. But I think it is an edge case for which there is no hurry, that we didn't touch rescinsion in p2016, and that we shouldn't put in reversal of it without more discussion.

But sure, let's discuss

Dave Singer (iPhone)

> On Aug 8, 2016, at 17:16, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:46 PM, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> 
>> I don’t think reversing a rescinsion is that easy at all.  We may, as a community, have taken steps consequent on something being rescinded and knowing it can’t get new licenses.  The licensors may have taken steps knowing that they cannot be asked to grant new licenses.  And so on.
>> 
>> I fear reversing rescinsion is not as simple as reversing obsoletion.
> 
> +1 to hearing legal perspectives on this (e.g., any other orgs do this?)
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2016 01:00:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 August 2016 01:00:15 UTC