On 11/30/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's absolutely nothing to disclose.
Are you sure about that?
I just prefer to limit my material contributions to various standards activities to organizations whose IP policies have been vetted and approved by my employer's IP lawyers or to posts on my personal weblog. Your wiki qualifies as neither.
Interesting. What is the difference between your personal weblog and a wiki, in IP terms? Keep in mind that a wise man once said "Anyone who uses the term 'Intellectual Property' is confused or trying to confuse you."
I had originally suggested that the draft be resubmitted as a WG draft. The Area Director and the WG chairs suggested that since autodiscovery was not covered under the original charter it would be better to pursue it as an individual submission. I decided to do so only on the condition that the same open process used for the development of the Atom and APP specs would be followed -- meaning that there would be no closed door decisions and that clear consensus had to develop via open discussions on the WG mailing list before any change to the document was made.
This entire paragraph is plainly false. All of the decisions you refer to were made without consulting the WG, the community, or what have you.
If y'all think
Ah, this is what's called "innappropriately folksy". It's a common rhetorical device used when the speaker wants to appear that they're on the side of "the common man" or equivalent. The president of the United States makes frequent use of this device. Mission Accomplished!, Robert Sayre
