Pubrules for WG Note seems off

[fantasai]

https://www.w3.org/pubrules/doc/rules/?profile=WG-NOTE

There's some requirements here that seem to make no sense.

• “This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time.” WG Notes are not draft documents any more than CRs and RECs are.

• “This document was produced by a group operating under the W3C Patent Policy.” The Patent Policy does not apply to NOTEs, only to REC-track documents.

[deniak]

There's some requirements here that seem to make no sense.

* “This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time.” WG Notes are not draft documents any more than CRs and RECs are.

These requirements have been there for quite a long time (2006) but I agree Notes should be considered as stable documents even if future updates are possible. @plehegar what do you think about dropping that requirement for WG Notes?

* “This document was produced by a group operating under the W3C Patent Policy.” The Patent Policy does not apply to NOTEs, only to REC-track documents.

For that one, I'm not sure how important it is to mention that the group is operating under the Patent Policy. @wseltzer, any optinion?

[plehegar]

+1 on dropping the non-stability requirement for Notes.

For patent policy, we need @wseltzer eyes first.

[wseltzer]

The statement about operating under the Patent Policy is true but inconsequential for a non-normative Note, so I don't mind dropping its requirement.

[svgeesus]

I believe the lack of patent policy on Notes is the reason for the data-deliverer attribute, which has the group ID of the WG that created the note.

[dwsinger]

I suspect that the comment about the Patent Policy should be explicitly reversed rather than deleted; something to the effect that Notes do not fall in the scope of the Patent Policy and its commitments and expectations, and therefore there is no implied or automatic grant of license. Do disclosure obligations apply? This would need careful crafting by lawyers, I fear.

[jennyliang220]

As shown in w3process/Decoupling Notes and REC track and the merged change (line 3860), Notes will not follow Patent Policy anymore in Process 2021. How shall specberus implement the change?

• Delete Patent Policy claim for Notes: This document was produced by a group operating under the W3C Patent Policy
• Reverse Patent Policy claim for Notes, into some text like This document is a Note and W3C Patent Policy doesn't apply.

@plehegar @wseltzer, any ideas?

[wseltzer]

@jennyliang220 thanks for raising this. We'll likely talk with PSIG as we evaluate Process 2021's proposed changes.

[fantasai]

@jennyliang220 @wseltzer Notes have never fallen under the Patent Policy afaict. I don't think we need to wait on 2021 to fix this.

[plehegar]

we should have revised wording for Notes and Registries as part of our Process 2021 move. Deleting the sentence makes sense to me (thus removing the pubrules requirement for that sentence).