Regarding Issue 1 in section 9.3 of the process document:
I think we need to look at rewordinig item 7 such that it removes the
requirement to fill out a LOA from
voting members (companies) that either don't hold, or are not aware of
patents that are relevent
to the Working Draft. This should be the assumed case if no LOA is
returned......
There are/will be cases in which voting members (companies) of the PWG do
not participate in a PWG
chartered effort such that knowledge of relevant IP (or the subject matter
of the effort itself) will not be
known without an exhaustive patent search for every PWG effort.
Given the current wording in the process document, a PWG voting member can
essentially block
the progress of a standard from Working Draft to Candidate Standard simply
by NOT submitting
a LOA.
Dennis Carney <dcarney at us.ibm.com>@pwg.org on 03/27/2003 11:23:06 AM
Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org
To: pwg at pwg.org
cc:
Subject: PWG> Process document updated
I have updated the PWG Process document with the changes discussed at the
last telecon.
The main two changes are that the concept of "Maturity Version" has been
replaced with "Maturity Level", and that a document now gets an IEEE ISTO
standard number when it becomes a candidate standard.
There is one issue explicitly called out, having to do with whether voting
can proceed on a document before all LOAs are in place.
I believe that this document is going to be discussed at the (planned to
take place over the phone) PWG plenary next Wednesday, April 2.
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030327.docftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030327.pdfftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030327-rev.docftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030327-rev.pdf
Dennis Carney
IBM Printing Systems