Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPR Comments

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

There is a very odd boilerplate response in how some Charter comments are
addressed.  I'm sure it does not go without notice, but I'm going to call it
out anyhow.

When someone says "I do not understand why this needs to be done under RAND
mode," to say "RAND is a valid OASIS IPR mode" is completely unresponsive.
It should be assumed that the questioner already knows that. The question
being asked is "Why is RAND mode adopted as opposed to one of the
more-lenient and predictable OASIS IPR modes?"

To beg the question in this way is simply confirming the fears of those who
ask concerning unspoken agendas and intentions to (reserve the right to)
extract royalties.  

This response can continue to be used, but at some point forthrightness and
transparency would seem to be a preferable approach to creating a charter
where any sort of broad participation/adoption and support for adoption as
an eventual OASIS Standard is the objective. If the convener and proposers
are simply hedging their bets, they should maybe grow up and say it like it
is, even biting the bullet and make a solid declaration -- there is IP that
will be asserted or there is and it will be RF on RAND or even RF on Limited
Terms.  If the potential IP is speculative, commit about that up front so
others understand what they are walking into and freely contributing into if
they choose to do that.

 - Dennis

Dennis E. Hamilton
------------------
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org