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

Re: Draft intro to Process 2016 Document to be sent to

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:47:03 -0700
Cc: ab@w3.org, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <DAB4B14A-25F5-4CBD-840E-66FC9B893164@apple.com>
To: Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org>
Hi

one more

It’s not quite correct to say that rescinded documents have no licensing commitments. 

I think we should say that rescinding is an existing process and has licensing implications (see section 5 of the patent policy). This change only adds obsoleting (and un-obsoleting).

I’d still prefer it shorter...

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 11:32 , Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org> wrote:
> 
>  
>  
> From: singer@apple.com <mailto:singer@apple.com> [mailto:singer@apple.com <mailto:singer@apple.com>] 
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:39 AM
> To: Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org <mailto:steve@zilles.org>>
> Cc: ab@w3.org <mailto:ab@w3.org>; Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>>
> Subject: Re: Draft intro to Process 2016 Document to be sent to
>  
>  
>> On Jul 29, 2016, at 8:39 , Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org <mailto:steve@zilles.org>> wrote:
>>  
>> All,
>> As promised at the last AB Telcon, I have drafted a cover letter to go with the proposed Process 2016 draft to be sent to the AC for consideration and comments. 
>>  
>> Steve Z
>>  
> 
>  
> Thanks. I’m not sure I would repeat the text of the Process, in this introduction, but I don’t have a strong position either way. (In a sense, I’d prefer that they read it in context, and we supply them with a Diff).
>  
> SZ: the main reason that I put the quote in is that I found it too difficult to write an overview to text which (even out of context) is pretty clear about what is happening. Rather than mis-re-write the text, I simply quoted it.
>  
> Initial minor comments:
>  
>> Since all these decision are binary (that is, the content of the affected
>> Recommendation, except for the Status section, does not change), Wide Review
>> prior to the AC (and Public) Review is not required or necessary. Anyone can
>> request one of these actions. If the Working Group that produced the
>> specification is still extent
>  
> Suggest: "For a few reasons — to streamline the process, because it’s a simple yes/no question (that is, the content of the affected Recommendation, except for the Status section, does not change), and because we would only obsolete when we don’t know of anyone to contact to ask for wide review — Wide Review prior to the AC (and Public) Review is not required or necessary."
>  
> SZ:I agree with you suggestion!
>  
> s/extent/extant/
> SZ: yep
>> This opens an IP exposure for W3C because we don't have
>> commitments from their employers just from the Consortium.
>  
> needs a comma after “employers”
> SZ: yep
>  
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>  

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.


Received on Friday, 29 July 2016 22:48:00 UTC

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