- From: Jason Antony <s1118355@student.gu.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:19:13 +1000
- To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
- CC: "Daniel J. Weitzner" <djweitzner@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daniel J. Weitzner wrote: > > > From: "Jason Antony" <s1118355@student.gu.edu.au> > > > > The actions outlined within are precise and remedy some outstanding > > flaws in the PP WG process. Why not adapt the same approach to the > > next WD? > > I'm not sure I understand how you think that should work Simple. In a nutshell, solutions should solve problems, not exacerbate them. The actions outlined in your mail did exactly that: address the shortcomings of the Patent Policy process, acknowledge the presence and importance of open source in developing Recommendations, allow continued feedback from the public, and so on. The PPF WD on the other hand, by opening up the RAND avenue for patent holders, would've unleashed chaos on web standards. I won't repeat all the valid observations made earlier :-) Cheers Jason -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 0.4.0a Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7zNx+lkkHOmvwyb4RAp0iAJ94nxkGrDgjhmQfjPagCSQJCdkdUgCgjDMz MDaxOT4ddhTjJC8ga3/YwEk= =cHFX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 21:19:49 UTC