- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:46:26 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Lofton Henderson wrote: > > 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. Right, it should have been raised at the CR transition call. I was not aware of it. It was issued by the Comm team. As a matter of fact it was not considered in the Charter milestones. > > 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.) It is in the Patent-Policy document: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion > > Is this normal for every technical report, at this stage? Yes it applies to all technical reports since 2 years. usually specs take more than 90+60 days to move from First WD to PR. therefore no one goes through this. We are too fast ;-) > effectively there is no possibility that there can ever be a CR shorter > than 60 days. 90+60 days from First WD, unless we go through a special agreement from all Members (see following) > > 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)? Is anyone against this process in the WebCGM WG? > > (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." Yes that is the default process, no further action is required. But in that case we have to wait until 22 Nov 2006. 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.) yes, you should propose this to Ian. I have already talk to Ian about this issue, which delays our spec. Feel free to address this issue if you think it necessary. Anyway, in our case, I have to request a new Call for Exclusion to the Comm Team. I will build an online form with a check box saying: "In order to enable the accompanying exclusion period to end early, we agree to waive any right to future exclusions with respect to the text of the CR version draft". when *all* the WG members (AC Reps) do answer this form, we will be able to move to PR, else we will wait until Nov 22nd. I hope everyone accept this process. Thierry. > > -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 >> >> >> > > > -- Thierry Michel W3C
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2006 10:46:36 UTC