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

Ted,

I'm very glad to hear that. I was drafting my response to you when I
noticed your message come in (and won't say that I'm upset at being able to
leave it unfinished).

I share some of your frustrations about the clarity of information
available about PP2020 and am glad you (and your AC rep) were able to make
sense of things.

It was also splendid to hear your voice on the WG call.

yours,
Brent Zundel, DID WG co-Chair




On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:53 PM Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
wrote:

> Brent, Ivan, Burn, (others?) --
>
> Thank you for your efforts at TPAC time and since, which were
> indeed above and beyond as regards the PP update. (IANAL either,
> but I have a knack for noticing apparently small but potentially
> significant issues, like the missing parentheses in PP2020 that
> I highlighted yesterday.)
>
> My AC Rep has approved the change to Patent Policy 2020, so
> there's no need for further effort on this front from you, and
> my +0 of yesterday is now a +1.
>
> That said, I hope that the concerns I have raised here will be
> brought back to W3M, and more that they will have some impact
> on future such changes.
>
> It would save *many* people a lot of time and energy if a simple
> DIFF were provided for anyone who is asked to consider a change
> from an old policy or standard to a new version thereof -- even
> if (and possibly especially if) those people are really expected
> to just relay the question within their organization.  Heck, just
> a brief plain-english summary of the changes -- from those who
> authored the same -- would go a long way!
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>