Re: Call for Exclusion: WebCGM 2.0 remains in CR until 22 November 2006.

Answering multiple messages at once...

At 10:01 AM 9/26/2006 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>[...]
>Its a 60 day period triggered by 90 days having elapsed since
>publication of the First Working Draft.
>http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion

Aha.  I looked there (hurriedly) and missed it.

It looks like an inherent process constraint on minimum time from FPWD to 
CR exit, unless extraordinary measures are invoked (every-member 
waiver).  I guess the careful reader would deduce that, but it would be 
interesting to call that out explicitly in a "Note.  Don't plan on going 
from FPWD to PR in less than 150 days (5 months), unless...".

All of us missed it when planning.  (Btw, this is NOT something that I want 
to pursue now.  Would be nice for some future clarification by Comm or 
whoever is responsible.)

At 12:07 PM 9/26/2006 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>On Monday, September 25, 2006, 8:24:19 PM, Lofton wrote:
>
>LH> Thierry -- is it clear by what mechanism they "waive any right to future
>LH> exclusions"?  [...].
>
>Thierry makes a WBS for for the AC Reps to do that. Its easy to do.

As soon as we have it, I'll try to get OASIS AC rep moving.  With only 4 
waivers to gather, there is actually some hope that we could stay 
approximately on schedule.

At 12:46 PM 9/26/2006 +0200, Thierry MICHEL wrote:
>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>[...]
>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 ;-)

Yes.  It is beside the point, but IMO it would be good for W3C if it were 
possible in principle to move a spec quickly.  In a larger WG, I don't 
think the every-member waiver would be easy or practical.

>>[...]
>
>Is anyone against this process in the WebCGM WG?

Topic for Thursday, for everyone:  "If you object, say so by Thursday."

One more comment....


>>(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.

Okay, then "we agree to waive any right to future exclusions" is 
essentially the same as "[we] do not wish to exclude patent claims during 
this exclusion opportunity, [which is] expected to be the last exclusion 
opportunity".  The latter language is assembled from direct quotes from 
Ian's call for exclusions email.

That is the question I was trying to clarify above.  (And no, I don't want 
to fuss around with the language now unless one of our members has problems 
with it.)


>I hope everyone accept this process.

Likewise.

-Lofton.



>>-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 15:58:31 UTC