RE: Call for Exclusion: WebCGM 2.0 remains in CR until 22 November 2006.

At 10:37 AM 9/25/2006 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:

>I think maybe the key is "all members" waive rights through their AC
>reps.  I've already instructed ours to do that.

Thanks Dave.  Any idea how long it will take?

Thierry -- is it clear by what mechanism they "waive any right to future 
exclusions"?  I have gone around all of the links in Ian's email [1], and I 
find no form or anything that implements "[we]...waive any right to future 
exclusions with respect to the text of the WebCGM CR version".

Do they have to send an email to you, or Ian, or me, or some list, or 
what?  Before I approach OASIS AC rep, I'd like to be able to give precise 
instructions.

-Lofton.


>Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
>Boeing Commercial Airplane
>206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734
>david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:44 AM
>To: Thierry MICHEL; WebCGM WG
>Subject: Re: Call for Exclusion: WebCGM 2.0 remains in CR until 22
>November 2006.
>
>
>I wonder, why wasn't this potential problem noticed during the 5th
>September transition teleconference, that approved the 6th October CR
>exit date?  Ian was on that teleconference, and he is the one who issued
>the call for exclusion.
>
>Where does the 60-day requirement come from?  As I looked at the various
>PP documents, I saw several references to "after publication of Last
>Call working draft".  I can't find anything about "60 days before PR
>transition"
>or "...after CR transition".  (But then again, that just may be my own
>inability to unravel the Byzantine and intertwined requirements of
>Process, Patent Policy, How to Organize..., etc.)
>
>Is this normal for every technical report, at this stage?  If so, then
>effectively there is no possibility that there can ever be a CR shorter
>than 60 days.
>
>So moving on to practical solutions...
>
>Boeing (Dave)
>Itedo (Dieter)
>ArborText (Larson)
>OASIS (Lofton)
>
>...is it possible to get your AC reps to do as Thierry says (below)?
>
>(Thierry, why "any right to future exclusions"?  Ian's mail says, "If
>you do not wish to exclude patent claims during this exclusion
>opportunity, no further action is required."  So why can't the AC reps
>say, "we do not wish to exclude patent claims during this exclusion
>opportunity"?  Saying that would be the logical equivalent of them doing
>nothing for two months.)
>
>-Lofton.
>
>At 05:42 PM 9/25/2006 +0200, Thierry MICHEL wrote:
>
> >With this Call for Exclusion [1], we can't move WebCGM 2.0 to PR before
>
> >November 22nd 2006.
> >
> >Nevertheless, there is one possibility to enter PR earlier:
> >
> >  *all* AC Reps of this WG need to agree to waive any right to future
> > exclusions with respect to the text of the WebCGM CR version.
> >
> >
> >If WG members are OK to do so in a fair amount of time, then we can
> >gain some time, else we will sit in CR until November 22nd.
> >
> >[1]
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Sep/0067.html
> >--
> >Thierry Michel
> >W3C
> >
> >
> >

Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 18:24:21 UTC