Re: [Minutes] DID WG 2020-11-17

Ted,

This is to let you know that I've seen your email.
Tomorrow I will put together a response that incorporates all of the
information I have on the new patent policy.
If an email response doesn't provide the clarity you need, please let me
know and I will find a time that works for your schedule so that we can
work through the information together.

Brent Zundel

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 18:26 Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
wrote:

> Greetings --
>
> My frustration around this new Patent Policy has grown since
> today's call. Hopefully it will shrink with the response to
> this message.
>
> Could someone please translate the following (from the Virtual
> TPAC slidedeck, slide #81) for me?
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RoE8E4y8S1j65EJaXZ8oihkduNbjTXXvdwtkzw961Xw/edit#slide=id.g9f4c7913d4_97_49
>
> Section 4 has the most changes, we’re not going to go into
>
> them in detail here.
>
> These are the changes that are most important for member
>
> companies to review.
>
> These changes are all related to the ability of a working
>
> group to now produce several, subsequent patent review drafts.
>
>
>
> What are the antecedents for the "These" in the 2nd and 3rd
> paragraphs? They seem to be different. One is likely to refer
> to the changes in Section 4, mentioned in the first paragraph,
> what of the other? And which is which?
>
> Is this slide trying to say that the changes (from other
> sections of the PP) covered in detail on the preceding
> slides were the most important?
>
> Or that the changes (from Section 4) *not* covered in detail
> are the most important?
>
> Or something else?
>
> Based on the screencaps in the preceding slides, it seems likely
> that the Patent Policy document revision was done on github, and
> that I should therefore be able to view a DIFF between the old
> and new documents there, optimally both pre- and post-ReSpec,
> but sufficient if only as HTML markup (i.e., pre-ReSpec).
>
> But maybe that visibility is restricted to members of some WG or
> other to which I do not belong.  (Which would be another point
> of contention, but I'll leave that for now.)
>
> The W3C is *supposed* to be a technical organization, working on
> and with technical tools, and should *not* reduce membership to
> visually comparing printouts, nor effectively make each member
> org jump through similar if not identical technological hoops
> to get digital copies of the old and the new off the web and
> into whatever comparison tools they might have available (Word,
> diff, etc.), and so on. I really hope there's a DIFF page that's
> already created and available for showing to anyone relevant,
> including AC Reps who have to approve it, and WG members who
> have to work within it.
>
> The current state of affairs makes it impossible for me to make
> a simple approve/reject recommendation, nor to provide a clear
> comparison of old vs new to OpenLink's AC Rep, upon which they
> can base a quick decision.
>
> Can anybody help me out here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
> --
> A: Yes.                          http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html
> | Q: Are you sure?
> | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
>
> Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
> Senior Support & Evangelism  //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
> <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
>                              //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
> OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
>          20 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 322, Burlington MA 01803
>      Weblog    -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
>      Community -- https://community.openlinksw.com/
>      LinkedIn  -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
>      Twitter   -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
>      Facebook  -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
> Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers
>
>
>
>
>