Hi Peter,
At 15:01 24-05-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Even if a document is mentioned in a charter as a likely starting point,
the chairs still need to make an explicit call for adoption of that
document as a WG item.
Ok.
The slides and audio are part of the record.
The audio seemed like a grey area to me. I'll keep that discussion
for another day.
Naturally it would be best if the disclosure were explicitly called out
in the minutes, as well. However, I agree with you that a formal
disclosure is always best. Let me chat about this with Tim.
Ok.
> What we were are looking for here is whether there are any claims. The
> easy path is to remove the sentence and keep the IPR question for the
> follow-up question.
Now your wording is not clear to me. What do you mean by "the follow-up
question"?
The possible steps are:
1. Reminder checks whether there are claims of IPR that needs
to be disclosed
2. Someone mentions a claim
3. Ask the WG whether they are ok given the new information
4. consensus call on the technical work
Step 3 is the follow-up question. I consider it as separate as what
is being asked of the WG participant is not clear. Some guidance is
needed so participants know what they are being asked to do or what
they can say (see past OAUTH thread as an example).
Regards,
-sm