W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > July 2016

RE: Action-140: Obsoleting a recommendation, one more minor fix

From: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:52:29 +0000
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "W3C Advisory Board" <ab@w3.org>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <540E99C53248CE468F6F7702588ABA2A0146C9AAF0@A1GTOEMBXV005.gto.a3c.atos.net>
+1 to clarify patent protection maintenance.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wseltzer@w3.org]
Sent: mercredi 6 juillet 2016 15:45
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>; W3C Advisory Board <ab@w3.org>; Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Action-140: Obsoleting a recommendation, one more minor fix

A question relating to the patent policy: Is "obsoleting" intended to leave patent commitments in-force? I'd support that, to continue protect those who had implemented, even if we don't recommend further implementation or use.

Note that the PP applies "as long as the Recommendation is in effect."
(Sec. 5.9)

So we might add, e.g. "an obsolete Recommendation is still deemed in effect, although it is not recommended for future implementation."


On 06/23/2016 08:01 AM, David Singer wrote:
> The AB realized that we might, just possibly, make a mistake and obsolete something that we weren’t aware is actively used; or we might obsolete something and then later it starts getting traction and being used. It should be possible to reverse obsoletion, though we hope and expect that this will be rare.
> The attached is a revision which adds the sentence:
> "Obsoletion may be reversed, using the same process as for obsoleting
> a Recommendation. “
> and then at the start of the two options, add that, viz.:
> "The announcement:
> must indicate that this is a Proposal to Rescind, or a proposal to Obsolete, or a proposal to reverse Obsoletion of, a Recommendation;”
> Yes, I am aware that other parts of the text could be made more complex and more explicit about reversal, but I don’t think it’s worth it: we can surely work out what the intent of the text is in the rare case of reversal.
> Yes, I am aware that we might end up with a case where, with the new knowledge, a decision to Obsolete would not pass, but the decision to reverse obsoletion also does not pass.  However, I think making the reversal process “reversal happens if it can be shown that obsoletion would have failed” is too complex to describe easily. I hope the community ‘does the right thing’ and we don’t get into this case.
> This body part will be downloaded on demand.

Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office) Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
https://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)

 This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2016 13:53:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:38 UTC