- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:07:47 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
On Monday, September 25, 2006, 8:24:19 PM, Lofton wrote: LH> At 10:37 AM 9/25/2006 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote: >>I think maybe the key is "all members" waive rights through their AC >>reps. I've already instructed ours to do that. LH> Thanks Dave. Any idea how long it will take? LH> Thierry -- is it clear by what mechanism they "waive any right to future LH> exclusions"? I have gone around all of the links in Ian's email [1], and I LH> find no form or anything that implements "[we]...waive any right to future LH> exclusions with respect to the text of the WebCGM CR version". Thierry makes a WBS for for the AC Reps to do that. Its easy to do. LH> Do they have to send an email to you, or Ian, or me, or some list, or LH> what? Before I approach OASIS AC rep, I'd like to be able to give precise LH> instructions. LH> -Lofton. >>Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange >>Boeing Commercial Airplane >>206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734 >>david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] >>Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:44 AM >>To: Thierry MICHEL; WebCGM WG >>Subject: Re: Call for Exclusion: WebCGM 2.0 remains in CR until 22 >>November 2006. >> >> >>I wonder, why wasn't this potential problem noticed during the 5th >>September transition teleconference, that approved the 6th October CR >>exit date? Ian was on that teleconference, and he is the one who issued >>the call for exclusion. >> >>Where does the 60-day requirement come from? As I looked at the various >>PP documents, I saw several references to "after publication of Last >>Call working draft". I can't find anything about "60 days before PR >>transition" >>or "...after CR transition". (But then again, that just may be my own >>inability to unravel the Byzantine and intertwined requirements of >>Process, Patent Policy, How to Organize..., etc.) >> >>Is this normal for every technical report, at this stage? If so, then >>effectively there is no possibility that there can ever be a CR shorter >>than 60 days. >> >>So moving on to practical solutions... >> >>Boeing (Dave) >>Itedo (Dieter) >>ArborText (Larson) >>OASIS (Lofton) >> >>...is it possible to get your AC reps to do as Thierry says (below)? >> >>(Thierry, why "any right to future exclusions"? Ian's mail says, "If >>you do not wish to exclude patent claims during this exclusion >>opportunity, no further action is required." So why can't the AC reps >>say, "we do not wish to exclude patent claims during this exclusion >>opportunity"? Saying that would be the logical equivalent of them doing >>nothing for two months.) >> >>-Lofton. >> >>At 05:42 PM 9/25/2006 +0200, Thierry MICHEL wrote: >> >> >With this Call for Exclusion [1], we can't move WebCGM 2.0 to PR before >> >> >November 22nd 2006. >> > >> >Nevertheless, there is one possibility to enter PR earlier: >> > >> > *all* AC Reps of this WG need to agree to waive any right to future >> > exclusions with respect to the text of the WebCGM CR version. >> > >> > >> >If WG members are OK to do so in a fair amount of time, then we can >> >gain some time, else we will sit in CR until November 22nd. >> > >> >[1] >> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Sep/0067.html >> >-- >> >Thierry Michel >> >W3C >> > >> > >> > -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2006 10:08:05 UTC