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

On Monday, September 25, 2006, 8:24:19 PM, Lofton wrote:

LH> 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.

LH> Thanks Dave.  Any idea how long it will take?

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

Thierry makes a WBS for for the AC Reps to do that. Its easy to do.

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

LH> -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
>> >
>> >
>> >






-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG