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

Re: Updated Editor's draft

From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:45:38 +0200
To: "Carine Bournez" <carine@w3.org>
Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ykf82cybs7agh9@chaals-osx2.local>
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:45:35 +0200, Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org> wrote:

> Comment on the 'supergroup' part, in section 5.2.6
> <<
> For every Recommendation Track deliverable that continues work on a  
> Working Draft (WD) published under any other Charter (including a  
> predecessor group of the same name), for which an Exclusion Opportunity  
> per section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33] has occurred, the  
> description of that deliverable in the proposed charter of the adopting  
> Working Group must provide the following information:
> "Predecessor group of the same name" would designate pretty much all
> rechartering occurences,


> not just supergroups (btw, can we stop calling that supergroup? a
> supergroup is currently a group with taskforces, even if that name does
> not appear in the Process)

the name 'supergroup' doesn't, and I hope won't, appear in the process,  
precisely because it means different things to different people.

For example I think of a "supergroup" as a concept defining things that  
get renewed repeatedly, and whose deliverables change - either explicitly  
or because their main deliverable is actually review.

I also think it is a *somewhat* useful term for thinking about a setof  
problems, but that it is not precise enough that we should try to  
formalise it and be limited by that.

> If the intent is indeed to include all kinds of rechartering, what  
> happens to the current rule of 45 days grace period after the CfP for
> rejoining?

It is still there.

The purpose of the 60 days is for people who weren't in the group, realise  
it is about to work on something they care about, and feel a need to do a  
patent check, but want to start "on day 1" in the new group, and for  
people already in the group who feel they need to check some item that has  
been put into the new charter.

Personally I think it's more than really necessary, but I also think it  
doesn't really hurt, and given the complex negotiation to get this far I  
am OK with it.

> Also, the use of the term "adopting Working Group" seems to contradict  
> the inclusion of "predecessor group of the same name".
> The current implicit continuation of licensing commitments in a WG would
> disappear as well?

The implicit continuation reflects practice and good sense, but is  
entirely unclear and people have read the Process and Patent Policy as not  
implying that continuation. The point of the change is to ensure that it  
happens, explicitly.

At least as far as we can - because we cannot predict what a court will  
say in an actual case, but we can try to make it as clear as possible what  
we *expect* them to say, should it ever come to that.



Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 18:46:10 UTC

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