Re: QAH outline

I'm trying to sort out what we decided about "Legal" in the 4/14 
telecon.  The minutes don't mention it, but I seem to recall we discussed 
it.  From email before the telecon...

At 11:37 AM 4/13/2004 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Le ven 09/04/2004 ŗ 19:53, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> > This is mostly invisible to me.  Do you have some references
> > subsequent to the work we did with Joseph?  That ad hoc task group
> > arrived at some consensus with some major participants like IBM, Sun,
> > Microsoft.
>I don't have the right references yet ; it'll probably have to wait till
>a next version of the QAH, but that's definitely where it should be
>documented. I'll try to see what I can get...
> > I propose that we should point to the work we did with Joseph, as
> > OpsGL currently does.  "Chose Document or Software License, consider
> > applying it separately to different components of TM."
>Hmm... I'm unsure... It may better to leave it empty for now, waiting
>for the topic to be cleared out - there have subsequent discussions
>which make me wonder if the results of the meeting in June is still
>relevant. Sorry not to have better references yet...

Did we decide that we wouldn't reference the specific minutes and issues 
summaries that Joseph compiled?

I am opposed to leaving it empty completely.  After a lot of effort, we 
achieved and published some results.  Those have not been superseded yet by 
anything visible to the membership (including our audience, the Chairs).  I 
think "no advice" is worse than some generic advice, like "Software License 
or Document License, or piecewise application of same to different TS 


Received on Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:04:33 UTC