Revising the charter (was Re: [relax-ng] Which mode should we choose?)

["MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>]

Eduardo,

Thanks for the clarifiation.

I am now convinced that new deliverables must 
be added to the charter. 

I would like to separate the discussion about the IPR transition 
and the discussion about the charter.   Folks, please use this 
thread about the charter discussion.  The original thread is 
for the IPR transition only.

Cheers,

Makoto


Forwarded by "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
----------------------- Original Message -----------------------
 From:    Eduardo Gutentag <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM>
 To:      "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
 Cc:      "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>,
          Kohsuke Kawaguchi <Kohsuke.Kawaguchi@Sun.COM>,
          Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>,
          jirka@kosek.cz
 Date:    Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:14:36 -0800
 Subject: Re: [relax-ng] Which mode should we choose?
----

I'm writing to you all individually because as an Observer my email to
the TC would be blocked from distribution. This email's purpose is
clarification only.

David, you do not have to change the charter. You may want to
clarify, but it is not necessary. Once you transition to the new
policy, what the charter says in terms of IPR is irrelevant. You
can use it as a guide, but the legally binding fact is that whoever
has signed a Membership Agreement, and is a member of the TC, is
legally bound by the terms of the IPR that the TC has adopted. In
other words, even if the charter says "this is a rabid RAND TC",
if the TC mode is "RF under Limited Terms", you *cannot*, if you
are a TC member, under any circumstances, either charge royalties or
fees for patents needed to implement the output of the TC, or impose
other RAND conditions. Of course it's always nice when the charter
reflects reality, but that's always hard to achieve anyway ;-)

As to the acceptance of contributions: only TC members may contribute
directly to the TC, and must do this under the terms of the TC's
IPR mode, of course. Non-TC members, whether OASIS members or not,
can contribute indirectly through the "Send a Comment" method, but
when they do that they have to agree that whatever they are about to
contribute to the TC is being contributed under the same IPR terms
as the TC's. So if the TC is RF under limited, all contributions,
from whatever source, must be RF under limited. And then the TC
can still choose to ignore whatever is contributed, of course,
for whatever reasons.

As to dates and deliverables: yes, please do something. I assume you
all know that this TC is pretty vulnerable at this point; there has
been no activity at all for a very long time, the email archives
are practically empty, and the membership has gone down to very
low levels.  The TC *may* be closed. Check the TC Process document,
Section 2.15 (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#2.15).



On 11/03/2006 07:11 AM, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
 > Murata,
 >
 > We will also need to change our charter first.
 >
 > We need explicitly add a section on IPR - my suggest is that we state
 > that we do not accept contributions to the work that have associated IPR
 > and hence are not public and open.
 >
 > Our current charter also needs updating on dates and deliverables - see
 > charter next below.
 >
 > Thanks, DW
 > ======================================================
 >
 > RELAX NG
 > *Statement of Purpose*
 > The purpose is to create a specification for a schema language for XML
 > based on the TREX proposal (http://www.thaiopensource.com/trex/). The
 > key features of TREX are that it:
 >
 >     * is simple
 >     * is easy to learn
 >     * uses XML syntax
 >     * does not change the information set of an XML document
 >     * supports XML namespaces
 >     * treats attributes uniformly with elements so far as possible
 >     * has unrestricted support for unordered content
 >     * has unrestricted support for mixed content
 >     * has a solid theoretical basis
 >     * can partner with a separate datatyping language (such W3C XML
 >       Schema Datatypes)
 >
 > *List of Deliverables*
 > The deliverable is a specification for the language. The projected date
 > for the first Committee Specification is 1 July 2001.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >     -------- Original Message --------
 >     Subject: [relax-ng] Which mode should we choose?
 >     From: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
 >     Date: Fri, November 03, 2006 10:05 am
 >     To: relax-ng@lists.oasis-open.org
 >
 >     Dear members of the RELAX NG TC,
 >
 >     We have to choose one of the modes unless we want to close this
 >     TC.  "RF on Limited Terms" sounds the most approproate for us.  Any
 >     ideas?
 >
 >     After we choose one of the modes, we will start a transition request
 >     ballot.  In my understanding, an e-mail ballot is good enough.  After
 >     that, I will ask Mary McRae to conduct the rest of the transition.
 >
 >     Cheers,
 >
 >     --
 >     MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
 >

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag        |    e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
Technology Director     |    Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 (internal x31442)
Corporate Standards     |    Sun Microsystems Inc.
              W3C AC Rep / W3C AB / OASIS BoD
808!!!


--------------------- Original Message Ends --------------------

-- 
国際大学
村田　真 <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>