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

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