- From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 23:38:20 +0000
- To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Wayne, Why send a note to the AC? They are not making IPR commitments. And, if you send a note, why establish a different period for action? Currently, I believe that the shortest AC response time is for a request to appeal an announced decision and that is three weeks. (See 8.2 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/68f2be460152/cover.html#ACAppeal.) These periods have been long to take cognizance of people having vacations and other commitments. > -----Original Message----- > From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 4:18 PM > To: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH); David Singer; chaals@yandex- > team.ru > Cc: public-w3process@w3.org > Subject: Re: Summarizing the state of Issue-152 > > > > On 2015-04-06 15:20, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > >> So, I would be OK with ‘The decision that a revision is purely editorial must > be made by the WG without dissent (i.e. abstention or failing to indicate is OK, > >> but a single voice saying “oh not it isn’t” is enough to force CR publication > and exclusion opps.)" > > Works for me. > > And post a note to the AC that it's going to happen and one objection also > means it goes to CR. It could be quick - like 7 days. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] > > Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 3:14 PM > > To: chaals@yandex-team.ru > > Cc: Wayne Carr; public-w3process@w3.org > > Subject: Re: Summarizing the state of Issue-152 > > > > > >> On Apr 6, 2015, at 14:57 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote: > >> > >> If something is added that turns out not to be editorial, and a case comes > up, there is *no* protection in the patent policy against a poor decision. > > If this is clear (that the IPR commitments are to the last thing someone had > an exclusion opportunity on, which is something I have always pushed for) > then we’re good to go with a thumping big warning to the WG that editorial > changes mean just that, and if they inadvertently (or deliberately) entangle > IPR, the IPR owner, EVEN IF a member of the WG, is not under any licensing > obligation. > > > > Having a 60-day ‘if you think this is non-editorial, speak up’ is pointless. One > may as well have a 60-day exclusion opp. and be done. > > > > A 60-day delay for publishing an edited document looks long and heavy > (though it’s not really). > > > > So, I would be OK with ‘The decision that a revision is purely editorial must > be made by the WG without dissent (i.e. abstention or failing to indicate is OK, > but a single voice saying “oh not it isn’t” is enough to force CR publication and > exclusion opps.)" > > > > David Singer > > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. > > > > >
Received on Monday, 6 April 2015 23:38:48 UTC