RE: Invited expert agreement

Thanks Sam.  I've created https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/150 to bring this to the Chair's attention as an issue we want to build consensus on and make a recommendation to W3C management.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] 
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:49 AM
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Re: Invited expert agreement

On 12/18/2014 10:37 AM, Olle Olsson wrote:
> On 2014-12-18 12:10, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> I suggest you draft a proposal for a modified IE agreement yourself 
>>> and invite comments.
>>>
>>> Although I claim there is no grey in my beard - and that funny 
>>> lighting makes it seem there may be - I have found that is a more 
>>> effective way to move things forward than waiting for someone else 
>>> to do the drafting.
>>
>> Fair enough:
>>
>> http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/12/18/08-invited-expert.html

>>
>> The one change is the removal of a single paragraph in section 2.2.
>
>  From what I see, there are  TWO paragraphs deleted.
> Should the last paragraph of section 2 in
>    http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2014/08-invited-expert.html

> be kept and not deleted?

Good catch!  Restored!

I see how it happened.  If you look closely at the original source you will see two paragraphs flowed together.

> /olle

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 19:12:21 UTC