ISSUE-181: A sentence was removed in the AC meeting and it, or something like it, should be put back

sentence

A sentence was removed in the AC meeting and it, or something like it, should be put back

State:

RAISED

Product:

Process Document

Raised by:

David Singer

Opened on:

2017-02-23

Description:

Two comments on the AC ballot requested a sentence be re-inserted:

A key sentence was removed from the final version out for AC review, even though it reflected a carefully crafted consensus of the Patent and Standards Interest Group on how to move work from one chartered Working Group to another. We respect the remaining language to address the issue as well as the strength of member opinion against this sentence, and will not formally object.
We do, however, believe that communications with the proponents of a measure could be better; making changes on the fly can have unintended consequences. The members who drafted and converged on the proposed text had an integrated proposal that lost a wheel in the process.
We hope the next revision of the Process Document will better address the challenge of moving work forward efficiently without losing clarity regarding patent commitments.

We support the Process document except for sections 5.2.4 and 5.2.6, because those sections no longer contain the 60-day language that was present in prior drafts. That language is as follows:
“The Director must not issue a Call for Participation less than 60 days after the beginning of an Advisory Committee Review for a charter that continues work on a document that has had a Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation published.”
This text resulted from PSIG discussions, and provides a link to the W3C Patent Policy, and should be reinserted into the Process Document draft.

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/process2016/results

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

No related emails

Related notes:

Display change log