Living standards – w3c wiki gas apple pay

This proposed licensing regime is being considered for the development of any standards. It is designed for continuous development of specifications (a process sometimes called "Living Standards"). We would prefer to call this process "Continuous Publication" as that’s the name of the process, rather than Living Standards, which appears to be the name of the products.

It is an open question how it could we adopted; we would probably make it available as a choice for all working groups at charter time, and possibly also for maintenance of existing Recommendations. The process would start in operation when the working group chooses to make a transition from "draft internal to the working group" onto this track.

This policy works on drafts “as they are”. Those drafts may be a mix of agreed material, provisional material, and errata reports. The term “entire draft” means the entire draft, and the term “agreed draft” means the draft with all provisional and errata material removed (done with a click or other affordance, automatically, on viewing). No manual editing is required. Drafts, once published, are immutable. If the WG has provisional material that is a more complex edit to the draft than automatic styling can handle, they can (as now) have an "editor’s draft" or other fork or branch where such provisional material can be considered before being pulled into the formal document.

Your exclusion opportunity ‘clock’ starts on any entire draft in which the IPR is essential. Your exclusion opportunity ends, and licensing commitment starts, when the IPR was essential in all agreed drafts published over a 225-day interval (that’s 180 days between checks plus 45 days to complete the check). (Note that the 225-day clock runs only against the agreed draft). You may file against any draft in the interval from the first entanglement (which means you can file if you see something ‘new’ in a draft that you didn’t see in an agreed draft in the 225 days prior to it).

You may also exclude other IPR; “prospective” exclusions (against IPR which is not essential in the entire draft) are permitted. You may also file exclusions for the provisional and errata material. The 225 day clock is not running for the licensing commitment for any of these.

Your licensing commitment is to any essential IPR in an agreed draft when there is a period of continuous essentiality that includes that agreed draft and lasts for 225 days or more, with no agreed drafts in that 225-day interval in which the IPR was not essential. (“could have excluded and did not”).

Your license grant starts when your exclusion opportunity ends. Once your licensing commitment is formed, you may not exclude that IPR against that specification in future, even if there was a gap in essentiality after your license commitment became final (licenses, once granted, are irrevocable).

You may exclude on join for any essential IPR; your exclusion opportunity is 24 hours. Your licensing commitments survive leaving the WG. There is no special opportunity on leaving; the clocks still run after termination (e.g. the 225 days from first essentiality up to the end of exclusion opportunity). On leaving you will be committed to licensing all applicable IPR that was essential to the agreed draft that existed at the time you left, if that draft is within the 225-day entanglement period for that IPR.

You therefore have a license to an agreed draft, to all IPR essential in that draft, from members of the WG at the time of that draft, that has been essential for a continuous period of 225 days or more that includes that draft, and has not been validly excluded at any time (prior to or after the publication of that draft).

This means that once IPR is entangled continuously over 225 days, and you have not excluded, you license; or conversely, you have a license to all drafts older than 225 days old, less exclusions filed prior to or on it. The requirement means that it’s effectively ‘continuously entangled’; any break in essentiality re-offers exclusion, which also means you don’t have to review every draft; ‘sampling’ drafts at least every 180 days will do it. If you need more than 45 days for checking (e.g. in a complex case), sample sooner than 180 days after your previous sample.

This means that the engineers just revise away. It gets slightly trickier for the lawyers — pick any draft and exclude; and know that you have a license for IPR that’s been in drafts for 225 days or more, less any exclusions filed on IPR in it.

Since exclusions might be made on different times and on different drafts, there is no natural time for lawyers to watch for exclusions filed by others. It therefore seems that the exclusion filing process should automatically notify at least the WG general mailing list, and probably also the AC, and maybe PSIG, so that the community is immediately aware and can take appropriate steps.

The W3C has a value that all substantive changes are subject to these three kinds of review. In order to enable these in a Living Standard, we mandate automated reports to the AC and cross-functional groups on a monthly basis, reporting on substantive changes.

External groups should be notified by liaison of the existence of the Living Standard, as early as is practical and useful, and agreement reached with them how they will review substantive changes. They may request to be added to the automated report, for example; they may elect to watch the repository manually; or ask to be notified manually by the WG e.g. in liaison or email. Such manual notification should be both archived and also occur no less frequently than every 180 days.

As with licensing review, there is a 180-day period here before changes are considered reviewed and accepted. Unlike licensing review, this period starts on the first report that details the change (even if it was later reverted and re-inserted). (Note that anyone, including AC, cross-functional groups, public, and members of the WG, are free to comment on anything at any time, of course).

WG Charters may declare that a document is developed on the Recommendation Track, or on the Living Standards track. Changes between tracks, for any document, require a new approved charter. The following initiations or transitions are permitted:

It is worth considering, if there is need, that in addition, publication of a LS as a Recommendation is possible: the stable core (i.e. excluding provisional features etc.) of a LS document that is 180 days old or older, and which contains no features not also present in the current LS, may be balloted as a Proposed Recommendation and proceed to Recommendation (upon approvals by the AC and Director), upon request of the WG.

In order to enable ‘harvesting’ of the Github repository URLs of Living Standards, by both lawyers and the tools that inform reviewers, the Github repositories must be created before the charter is sent to formal AC review, and the URLs to those repositories must be in the charter, in a section clearly listing those documents on the Living Standards track.

The readable document must list, in its header, the URL that refers to the latest viewable version, and also a permanent URL to the specific revision being viewed. It should also identify the Github repository where issues are filed and revisions made.

The charter must identify the implementability, implementation, test suite, and test pass coverage requirements for a feature to be considered not provisional but final. Features that do not meet these requirements should be integrated first as provisional, and a second Pull Request made to change them to non-provisional, when the requirements are met.