Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
We seem to ask for a post-finalization BCQ in addition to the post-adoption one.
Requiring an additional one makes little sense to me and seems somewhat of a process absurdity – is that something the Board really requires?
Surely all that's needed is commitment that the Finalized spec is implemented.
I also think it’s absurd to require a new BCQ for each minor revision. If someone is committed to implement the Finalized spec, it's reasonable to assume they're going to implement the spec with bugs and ambiguities fixed!
Finally the BCQ does not ask for any more detail than "an implementation". Since most specs have several conformance points it seems useful to ask a further question about which will be provided. More useful IMO than asking about platform.
Looking at the P&P it does not seem clear, and only seems to require one BCQ at time of adoption (which also applies to Finalization).
For RFCs only step 6 says:
[When the TC adoption vote begins the submitter(s) can expect to receive the
standard Questionnaire from the Board’s Business Committee asking about
IPR ownership of the Specification and commercial availability of
implementations, and requesting a grant of copyright for publication.]
The only other mention seems related to Veto power in 184.108.40.206:
[this judgement is usually made by the Board's Business
Committee, based upon responses to a questionnaire sent to submitters
whilst the TC adoption recommendation vote is in progress.]
Reported: ABPSC 3.3 — Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:44 GMT
Updated: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 19:39 GMT
ABPSC — BCQ requested too frequently, and unclear in the P&P
- Key: ABPSC-22
- OMG Task Force: AB Process Subcommittee