Robert Sayre wrote: > [snip] > 1.) IP Protections > > This is interesting for a couple of reasons. One is that Mr. Snell > previously claimed that the document has "nothing to do with my day > job" [1]. The second is the complete absurdity of worrying about IP > protections on HTML tags that make an orange button appear. > [snip]
Good grief. What I said was that my volunteering to take over the editing of the autodiscovery draft had nothing to do with my day job; that is, no one at IBM asked me to work on autodiscovery nor am I aware of anything at IBM that is dependent on its completion. The only reason I volunteered to serve as editor was because it was a loose end that hadn't been tied up yet by the WG. > Do James Snell or IBM need to disclose any IP related to RSS and Atom > autodiscovery? There's absolutely nothing to disclose. I just prefer to limit my material contributions to various standards activities to organizations whose IP policies have been vetted and approved by my employer's IP lawyers or to posts on my personal weblog. Your wiki qualifies as neither. > 2.) Structured Process > > Mr. Snell points at RFC2026. This is an individual draft. There is > basically no consistent process. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying > to deceive you. This group already has some good examples of the way > RFC2026 is interpreted in practice. It would be very disingenuous to > claim it constitutes structure. > I had originally suggested that the draft be resubmitted as a WG draft. The Area Director and the WG chairs suggested that since autodiscovery was not covered under the original charter it would be better to pursue it as an individual submission. I decided to do so only on the condition that the same open process used for the development of the Atom and APP specs would be followed -- meaning that there would be no closed door decisions and that clear consensus had to develop via open discussions on the WG mailing list before any change to the document was made. > 3.) Well, whatever. ;) > > a little confused, Again, it would help if you quoted me accurately. My complete statement can be found at [1]. All of the comments in my blog post were specifically in regards to why I did not intend to participate in your personal wiki documentation experiment. Good luck with it tho. Now, to the WG as a whole: I really don't have any agenda for the autodiscovery stuff other than to help foster it along. If y'all think there is a need for a I-D defining autodiscovery for Atom and APP, I've got a few spare cycles to help with the editing. If y'all think the HTML5 stuff is sufficient, that's fine with me too. If y'all want to go some other direction with it, whatever. - James [1] http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=545
