Carl Trieloff wrote: > > William, > > I have made some edits to the wiki on the Mechanisms for feedback > section to clean up the language, based on some of the misunderstanding > and to reflect the discussion from the list onto the wiki. Tried to keep > it short, but can edit more in if required.
Although the objectionable language still appears on the spec parties' web sites, and I still consider it an abuse of the phrase "In the same spirit of an Apache-style process" until the rest of the language changes... I have one last suggestion on your choice of words... >From the proposal, "On such acceptance the employer is required to sign an agreement to make sure that employer also grants the ongoing and consistent licenses to the work as posted in specifications." could be more simply put "On such acceptance, the employer must also sign the [RLA? ] agreement [or is this Specifications Party Contract?] to ensure that all necessary licenses are clearly granted." - which makes perfect sense. I still find two points in the RLA (which, w.r.t. employment *wasn't* at all objectionable(!) and entirely contributor-focused, individual or corporate) to be odd; "for the purpose of developing and promoting the Specification and in connection with any product that implements and complies with the Specification" which is a bit too fuzzy for many to agree too (usually it would be constrained to "necessary to implement the proposed Feedback to the Specification" or some similarly narrow language - but if this works for all involved), and... "information shall be considered “Confidential Information” when, [...] (ii) non-tangible disclosures are identified as confidential prior to disclosure and reduced to writing, marked as provided above, and delivered to the receiving party within thirty (30) days of the original date of disclosure." which from a mailing-list centered activity is entirely a cat out of the bag scenario. It's important that the project understand that the infra team has a -strict- policy about not redacting project mailing list history for any purpose whatsoever. I am confident that at least three of the initial committers are clear in their company hat / project hat deliniation and that any confusion about this, in practice, will be cleared up in the project pre-committee. Last and final objection, I want to make sure I am not missing something... the contract between the spec participants is or is not public? If public, was there a link I missed? If so, can it be added to the proposal for completeness sake? Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
