Re: Review of Process 2020

> On Dec 2, 2019, at 23:00, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/2/2019 2:20 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>>> On Nov 28, 2019, at 6:34, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Florian,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for addressing my previous issues and rewriting Chapter 6.  Here are my review comments on the latest revision [1].
>>> 
>> Thank you for keeping at it.
>>> 1. In several sections (starting with Section 3.1) there is a reference to a future version of the Patent Policy.  Since it is not yet written, you refer to a draft PP that you wrote [2] that has not yet been approved by PSIG which differs from the existing patent policy.  Since we have heard that the attorneys have a specialized legal vocabulary in terms of how they approach this, I encourage you to work with Wendy to see if all of the references to [2] are helpful to PSIG.  For situations in which [2] does not differ from the current PP (I'm not sure the frequency) we should consider referencing the current PP to reduce how much "change" will need to be gronked by PSIG reviewers.
>>> 
>> Our (partly executed) plan is to replace section numbers in references to the patent policy with section names, making it more robust to updates. We did switch the reference to the Patent Policy itself to the new draft, but we can switch that back to the old one until the new one gets more traction.
> 
> +1 to change it back asap. We'll upset PSIG otherwise on December 9. We don't want them to write the Process, they don't want us to write the Patent Policy, so let's move carefully.

Done.

—Florian

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2019 03:23:27 UTC