[cabfpub] IPR policy and authorial intent

Kirk Hall Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Tue Nov 8 17:12:43 UTC 2016

Yes, Gerv, Entrust will follow whatever Marc (as drafter of the IPR Policy) says the IPR Policy means.  If needed, the Forum can then discuss whether it wants to make changes for future ballots.  Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 8:46 AM
To: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR policy and authorial intent

I may have buried the lede here, so:

On 03/11/16 16:21, Gervase Markham wrote:
> be addressed, which would be fine. But would both sides be willing to 
> allow Mark to rule on original intent, and then adopt that method for 
> at least the purposes of getting the Forum back on its feet?

Kirk, Virginia and Ryan: are you both willing to abide by Marc's determination, at least temporarily?

That is, are you willing to accept authorial intent as good enough to guide us (and protect us from being found not to have been following the policy that person authored), at least so we can get our documents back in a good IPR place via ballots 180-182 (or similar ballots if the current ones turn out to have been done via the wrong process)?

We can then always revise our policies to make what to do going forward very clear, and have a good discussion as to whether Positions 1 or 2 is what we _should_ be doing in future.

If you aren't willing to accept Marc's determination, it seems like we will have to start with the discussion of Positions 1 and 2, achieve consensus in the whole forum and agree wording, ballot that, and then restart ballots 180-182 or equivalent. This could take a very long time, during which the Forum's documents are in an uncertain IPR state and no edits can be made to them.

Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org

More information about the Public mailing list