[cabfpub] IPR policy and authorial intent

[Gervase Markham]

I may have buried the lede here, so:

On 03/11/16 16:21, Gervase Markham wrote:
> be addressed, which would be fine. But would both sides be willing to
> allow Mark to rule on original intent, and then adopt that method for at
> least the purposes of getting the Forum back on its feet?

Kirk, Virginia and Ryan: are you both willing to abide by Marc's
determination, at least temporarily?

That is, are you willing to accept authorial intent as good enough to
guide us (and protect us from being found not to have been following the
policy that person authored), at least so we can get our documents back
in a good IPR place via ballots 180-182 (or similar ballots if the
current ones turn out to have been done via the wrong process)?

We can then always revise our policies to make what to do going forward
very clear, and have a good discussion as to whether Positions 1 or 2 is
what we _should_ be doing in future.

If you aren't willing to accept Marc's determination, it seems like we
will have to start with the discussion of Positions 1 and 2, achieve
consensus in the whole forum and agree wording, ballot that, and then
restart ballots 180-182 or equivalent. This could take a very long time,
during which the Forum's documents are in an uncertain IPR state and no
edits can be made to them.

Gerv