[cabfpub] IPR policy and authorial intent

[Gervase Markham]

On 08/11/16 17:05, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> I appreciate the attempt to appeal to authority, but as it stands, and
> as was echo'd on the call and the list, the best path to get us into a
> clear state is to ensure that a ballot, regarding process and policy, is
> held.

:-|

Position 1 and Position 2 are attempts to explain what the two sides
think the current policy means. So we could ballot either of them, or we
could ballot something else (a consensus position). I understand that
you would vote No to Position 1, and yes to Position 2. Do you have
ideas about how Position 2 could be improved to take account of the
concerns of those who hold Position 1?

Gerv