Re: W3C Process 2016: Charter extensions and 60 days publication blackouts

> I still think that mandating explicit "adoption" of all specs when rechartering without
> a WG (name) change is too complex in this draft of process2016 and introduces
> unnecessary delays and burden (list all of a WG's specs in the charter!)

The W3C Process tries to strike a balance between not imposing “unnecessary delays and burden” on one hand and not leaving ambiguities that could result in royalty requests or patent litigation on the other.  This topic has been very extensively discussed in PSIG and the current proposal is the result. The Process 2016 language mainly tries to align different interpretations of the patent policy with recent practice when rechartering long-running groups, in the hope of tightening up ambiguities that some find worrisome.  

I don’t suppose that the current proposal is the best we can do, but “le mieux est l'ennemi du bien”.


-----Original Message-----
From: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 at 12:23 AM
To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: Re: W3C Process 2016: Charter extensions and 60 days publication  blackouts
Resent-From: <public-w3process@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 at 12:23 AM

    On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:50:32PM -0400, David Singer wrote:
    [PLH]
    > > The proposed Process 2016 introduces the following:
    > > [[
    > > Transition requests to First Public Working Draft or Candidate Recommendation will not normally be approved while a Working Group's charter is undergoing, or awaiting a Director's decision on, an Advisory Committee Review, until the Director issues a Call for Participation for the Working Group.
    > > ]]
    > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/cfef536bff0d/cover.html

    > > 
    > > Depending on the interpretation, this addition may be either overly restrictive (1) or doesn't have effects (2).
     
    [DS]
    > Not exactly. I think it???s trying to deal with the problem that the new charter can???t identify the drafts that are adopted that are ???under the patent policy??? if they are published and become such AFTER the charter is frozen and sent for review.
    
    
    The current proposed text does not solve the question, IMHO. It uses the term Reference
    Draft that is usually a FPWD, so 60 days does not solve anything. If we wanted to 
    have a frozen list of specs that had or are under an exclusion opportunity, it should
    cover the period during which in theory the Ref Draft can change, so 90 days, not 60.
    
    Important note: we currently don't implement a different Ref Draft when a draft is 
    published in the first 90 days of a FPWD exclusion: In 2006, an issue was raised,
    explaining that changing the Ref Draft during the first 90 days of the exclusion 
    period makes those 90 days - which are btw the opportunity to leave without commitment -
    useless if the Ref Draft is a moving target. so since 2006, Ref Draft = FPWD, except in 
    the case of adoption by another WG.
    
    I still think that mandating explicit "adoption" of all specs when rechartering without
    a WG (name) change is too complex in this draft of process2016 and introduces 
    unnecessary delays and burden (list all of a WG's specs in the charter!)
    
    The grace period already covers something close to the 60 days. We currently implement
    a 7-day delay for exclusion upon joining during the WG's life, we could extend that 
    a bit if necessary, without crafting complex rechartering rules and delays.
    
    
    -- 
    Carine Bournez /// W3C Europe

Received on Monday, 29 August 2016 17:48:43 UTC