Adjust language for getting patent policy comittments from non-participants #1129

frivoal · 2025-12-08T20:52:25Z

This makes sure that we seek commitments to the patent policy from the the people who are originating the substance of the change being offered, rather than from those who are doing the mechanical work of offering them.

Note: This aligns with current Team practices and existing tooling.

Addresses #903

Preview | Diff

This makes sure that we seek commitments to the patent policy from the the people who are originating the substance of the change being offered, rather than from those who are doing the mechanical work of offering them. Note: This aligns with current Team practices and existing tooling. Addresses w3c#903

nigelmegitt

Query about proposals originating from more than one party.

nigelmegitt · 2025-12-10T10:47:27Z

index.bs

-	When a party who is not already obligated under the Patent Policy
-	offers a change in class 3 or 4
+	When a proposal for a change in class 3 or 4
 	(as described in [[#correction-classes]]) to a technical report under this process


With this change, I don't think the words "under this process" add anything, so I'd suggest deleting them as part of this PR.

nigelmegitt · 2025-12-10T10:49:50Z

index.bs

-	offers a change in class 3 or 4
+	When a proposal for a change in class 3 or 4
 	(as described in [[#correction-classes]]) to a technical report under this process
+	originates from or contains substantive contributions by a party not already obligated under the patent Policy,


This gives rise to a potential edge case that some change originates from more than one party not already obligated under the patent Policy.

If I'm reading it correctly, under this scenario, the Team can satisfy this changed Process requirement by getting a commitment from only one of them, rather than all of them.

That's not the way I read it. Do you have a rephrasing suggestion to make it clearer?

nigelmegitt · 2025-12-11T09:16:40Z

index.bs

+	originates from or contains substantive contributions by a party not already obligated under the patent Policy,
 	the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> request
 	a recorded royalty-free patent commitment;
 	for a change in class 4, the Team <em class=rfc2119>must</em> secure such commitment.


Proposal as requested:

Suggested change

originates from or contains substantive contributions by a party not already obligated under the patent Policy,

the [=Team=] must request

a recorded royalty-free patent commitment;

for a change in class 4, the Team must secure such commitment.

originates from or contains substantive contributions by any parties not already obligated under the patent Policy,

the [=Team=] must request

a recorded royalty-free patent commitment

from all of those parties;

for a change in class 4, the Team must secure such commitment.

I don't object to this language, but it seems to me to be using more words to mean the same thing.

I made the proposal because I don't think it does mean the same thing!

I think this gets closer, though I do wonder why classes 1, 2, & 3 only require a request, while class 4 requires that the request be satisfied.

Suggested change

originates from or contains substantive contributions by a party not already obligated under the patent Policy,

the [=Team=] must request

a recorded royalty-free patent commitment;

for a change in class 4, the Team must secure such commitment.

originates from or contains substantive contributions by

any parties not already obligated under the patent Policy,

the [=Team=] must request

a recorded royalty-free patent commitment

from each of those parties;

for a change in class 4,

the Team must secure such commitments

from each and every such party.

Now I'm in the position of thinking that change doesn't modify the meaning of my proposal! Possibly commitment on the last line should be commitments.

I did actually consider this and decided that such commitment in the last line can only be interpreted as referring to all of the requested commitments. If it doesn't read that way to you @TallTed , how would you feel about just changing the "must secure such commitment" to "must secure such commitments" in the last line?

I'm sensitive that, in increasing precision, we may be reducing readability and heading towards language that feels more "legalistic" than it needs to.

I have no opinion about emphasising secure.

Given the comments, I would suggest going with the proposal at #1129 (comment) with secure emphasised.

This is what this gives:

Suggested change

originates from or contains substantive contributions by a party not already obligated under the patent Policy,

the [=Team=] must request

a recorded royalty-free patent commitment;

for a change in class 4, the Team must secure such commitment.

originates from or contains substantive contributions by any parties not already obligated under the patent Policy,

the [=Team=] must request

a recorded royalty-free patent commitment

from all of those parties;

for a change in class 4, the Team must secure such commitment.

I'm ok with that. @TallTed, fine by you too?

It's not clear what adding emphasis achieves here, so suggest leaving as it was.

I would tend to agree with @chrisn.

In my opinion the  on secure makes more clear the required resolution of the requests that were issued based on the previous phrase.

I won't lie down in the road on it, but I'll ask that folks keep this sequence in mind for potential future revision if such commitments are not being treated as required (until after some time without securing them).

css-meeting-bot · 2026-01-14T15:56:20Z

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1129.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<brent> subtopic: https://github.com//pull/1129
<brent> Github: https://github.com//pull/1129
<TallTed> s/florian, you wanted to make a procedural point/
<Ian> Florian: PSIG is discussing this and has not yet converged. But one note is that prior to 2019 there was no formal rule about what to do regarding non-Member contributions , and the PP FAQ explained that it's the responsibility of a WG Chair to do the right thing. In 2019 a formal rule was introduced but the PP FAQ was not updated.
<Ian> q+
<Ian> Brent: My first reaction is that the PSIG should update the FAQ
<brent> ack Ian
<Ian> Ian: Two areas of concern for me include (1) where rules should reside [IMO, should not be in the process] and (2) who has responsibilities (e.g., Chairs v. Team)
<Ian> Brent: Since PSIG is discussion, let's await their findings.
<RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/14-w3process-minutes.html Ian

frivoal added the Needs PSIG Feedback label Dec 8, 2025

frivoal changed the title ~~Adjust language for getting patent policy from non paticipants~~ Adjust language for getting patent policy comittments from non paticipants Dec 9, 2025

nigelmegitt reviewed Dec 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

frivoal changed the title ~~Adjust language for getting patent policy comittments from non paticipants~~ Adjust language for getting patent policy comittments from non-paticipants Dec 10, 2025

nigelmegitt reviewed Dec 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

frivoal changed the title ~~Adjust language for getting patent policy comittments from non-paticipants~~ Adjust language for getting patent policy comittments from non-participants Dec 17, 2025

Adjust language for getting patent policy comittments from non-participants #1129

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Adjust language for getting patent policy comittments from non-participants #1129

Uh oh!

Conversation

frivoal commented Dec 8, 2025 • edited by pr-preview bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nigelmegitt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

css-meeting-bot commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

frivoal commented Dec 8, 2025 •

edited by pr-preview bot

Loading