Closed dontcallmedom closed 3 years ago
isn't it better to have dated link for patent policy in section 4?
Re dated link for the patent policy, I'm following the model from the charter template which doesn't use a dated link.
Re dated link for the patent policy, I'm following the model from the charter template which doesn't use a dated link.
ah, sorry I seems to mis-remenber that part. let me rephrase as: isn't it better to include version of patent policy where it is mentioned? (as in the model under the W3C Patent Policy (Version of 15 September 2020)
)
my understanding is that the template for IG charters wasn't updated with a dated mention since IGs only have disclosure obligations, not licensing ones, and so have been unaffected by the changes in the patent policy
No comments from APA, thanks for the liaison statement! Over to @brewerj to complete accessibility horizontal review.
no comment/request from i18n.
Removed HR checkboxes from the template, per strategy team discussion.
Privacy and security reviews done. Privacy issue at: https://github.com/w3c/web-networks-charter/issues/30
New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.
Charter Review
Charter: Web & Networks Interest Group
What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.
Communities suggested for outreach:
Known or potential areas of concern?:
Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? (github preferred, email, ...)
Anything else we should think about as we review?