[cabf_governance] Ballot 206

[Virginia Fournier]

Hi all,

After the call yesterday (what little I could follow), I was pondering what the problem is with moving this ballot forward.  I realized that there is a lot of resistance, questions, comments, concerns, issues, etc. - but no one is championing the ballot.  I have been working on it in order to help this WG, but this isn’t a critical issue for us.  In general, there has been an incredible lack of interest in the documents - and the interest there has been has been picking holes in the drafts without offering any language to solve the perceived issues.

Whoever wants the WG-based IP structure needs to get behind the ballot and drive it.  Right now, I can’t see who that is, if anyone - but that person is not me.  At one point we talked about the fact that Oracle wouldn’t join CAB Forum because of the IP structure, but is that really relevant now?  I think perhaps we should take a poll to see who supports the idea of WG-based IP commitments.  Depending on the numbers, maybe we should drop this for now.  We could still propose the other changes clarifying definitions, etc. 

I know this effort is taking much more of my time than I anticipated, and I’m sure that’s true for others as well.  We shouldn’t put any more effort into this ballot and related documents until we know whether anyone really wants these changes.


Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20171003/d998544e/attachment.html>