Clarify Team Amendments

[fantasai]

When dropping Amended Recommendations (in #428), we added a paragraph saying that the Team can make editorial changes to a REC including adding candidate corrections:

If there is no Working Group chartered to maintain a Recommendation, the Team may republish the Recommendation with such changes incorporated, including errata and candidate corrections.

The tricky thing about candidate corrections is that they are covered by the Patent Policy (as Working Draft material), but the Team making changes without a Working Group can't invoke the Patent Policy.

So I think we need to distinguish corrections made by the Team (as opposed to the WG) more clearly, and to clarify in the Process that such corrections are not covered by the Patent Policy. I suggest calling them “Team Corrections” to make this clear and adding some text defining that these aren't covered by the Patent Policy.

Note: We do require in 6.1.5 that the team be explicit that they authored these corrections, but there's currently no dedicated label to identify them.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Distinguishing Team corrections.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Topic: Distinguishing Team corrections
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/493
<fantasai> florian: We had introduced ability for Team, when there exists no WG to maintain a REC, can introduce candidate amendments to the spec
<fantasai> florian: One point we missed, when the WG introduces such amendments, it's considered WD for sake of Patent Policy
<fantasai> florian: PP has some clauses that affect WDs
<fantasai> florian: But Team isn't a WG, and is not covered by PP
<fantasai> florian: So that's the issue
<fantasai> florian: Solution is to clarify
<fantasai> florian: We mark Team amendments specially, and clarify they aren't subject to Patent Policy
<fantasai> florian: PR does this
<fantasai> https://github.com/frivoal/w3process/commit/1ff987214dcee1598983a3c8ce665ac2f22f0249
<wseltzer> q+
<fantasai> dsinger: idk if "non-normative" is the right word
<plh> q+
<fantasai> fantasai: "non-normative" references the last section in the PP, which says what's covered vs not in the PP -- non-normative text isn't covered by PP
<jeff> ack ws
<fantasai> florian: We also note that the candidate corrections are notes about what the WG intends to do, not actually changing the spec
<fantasai> wseltzer: I haven't reviewed this yet, need to
<fantasai> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20200915/#def-essential-requirements
<dsinger> q?
<dsinger> ack plh
<fantasai> plh: two requests for amended RECs in the past week
<fantasai> plh: We were talking about it earlier because not used in the past
<fantasai> plh: ??? didn't push to REC because of a dependency on ?????
<fantasai> plh: and just received comments on media type from IETF, REC from 2013(?)
<fantasai> plh: and will need to publish Amended REC to address
<fantasai> plh: maybe editorial though
<dsinger> q?
<fantasai> dsinger: Sounds like just waiting on review from wseltzer, maybe wording tweak
<fantasai> dsinger: come back to it next time

[wseltzer]

@dwsinger and I made similar comments in the PR #494

[frivoal]

Closed by #494