On 5/24/12 5:10 PM, SM wrote: > 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). Got it. Thanks! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/