W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > September 2001

A few further points

From: Zak McGregor <zak@mighty.co.za>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 03:20:05 +0200
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011001032005.4326d395.zak@mighty.co.za>
Firstly, I would like to add my voice to those calling for an extension
to the deadline for comments on this issue. It would be immoral,
cowardly and a further affront to the W3C's credibility should this
request be denied. Theo de Raadt asked for at least a week, I'd like to
recommend at least until February or March 2002. It is that important an
issue and the *very* uneven comment distribution would indicate that
there has been too little attention given to this topic. 

Next, it would seem as if the people contributing to this particular
project represent a rather unbalanced grouping drawn from only
commercial bodies. I propose that an equal number of people from more
diverse organisations be brought in to facilitate the progression of
this proposal. I volunteer to sit on the committee myself, representing
independent developers from around the world if needed. I call on other
volunteers to step forward and offer their services to create a
counterweight on the project committee to the blatantly commercial
interests of those sitting on it currently. Here is a list of the people
& companies represented on the committee:

Michele Herman, Microsoft, micheleh@microsoft.com
Scott Peterson, Hewlett-Packard, scott_k_peterson@hp.com
Tony Piotrowski, Philips, tony.piotrowski@philips.com
Barry Rein, Pennie & Edmonds (for W3C), barry@pennie.com
Daniel Weitzner, W3C/MIT, djweitzner@w3.org
Helene Plotka Workman, Apple Computer, plotka@apple.com

Lastly, if this is even remotely true, we should simply walk away from
this group and start our own, truly Free standards body:
"As we have begun to use portions of the policy in the day-to-day
operations of W3C, we plan to skip the Candidate Recommendation and move
directly to an Advisory Committee Review of a Proposed Recommendation
draft."

Can someone from the W3C expand on this please? What has already been
used? How was it passed into general usage already? Who authorised that
to happen? Who can be held accountable for this debacle?

Thank you

Zak McGregor
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 21:19:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:39 GMT