- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:01:41 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
On Monday, September 25, 2006, 6:44:05 PM, Lofton wrote: LH> I wonder, why wasn't this potential problem noticed during the 5th LH> September transition teleconference, that approved the 6th October CR exit LH> date? Ian was on that teleconference, and he is the one who issued the LH> call for exclusion. LH> Where does the 60-day requirement come from? As I looked at the various PP LH> documents, I saw several references to "after publication of Last Call LH> working draft". I can't find anything about "60 days before PR transition" LH> or "...after CR transition". (But then again, that just may be my own LH> inability to unravel the Byzantine and intertwined requirements of Process, LH> Patent Policy, How to Organize..., etc.) Its a 60 day period triggered by 90 days having elapsed since publication of the First Working Draft. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion The fact that it was also a Last call and has since moved to CR does not affect that; except that the first call for exclusions will also be the last call for exclusions. LH> Is this normal for every technical report, at this stage? If so, then LH> effectively there is no possibility that there can ever be a CR shorter LH> than 60 days. Its unrelated to CR. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2006 08:01:55 UTC