We need to run this past Jorge. The gist of that section of the text basically
came from an email exchange we had. I'm not at all opposed to changing it, but
if we change it, Jorge needs to OK it.
On 2011-9-9, at 18:36, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
For what it's worth, I have the same question as Ben - if this guidance
applies to the kinds of informal meetings in restaurants and bars that the
IESG is encouraging, even if they aren't publicized and aren't open to the
community, is there any way for two or more IETF participants to talk to each
other, that's NOT under NOTE WELL?
I think it DOES make sense to say that the kinds of informal meetings the
IESG is discouraging - in IETF meeting rooms, with agendas, mailing lists,
presentations, attendee lists, and minutes - should include NOTE WELL
But if I was sitting next to Adam Roach on a plane headed for the IETF (which
has happened before) when he was editor of GIN and I was chair of MARTINI
(this last part did not), and we started talking about proposed changes to
the GIN draft, is that covered?
Color me confused ...
-- Section 6 suggests side meetings should be (somehow "informally")
covered by NOTE WELL. I think this is a very dangerous suggestion. The
rest of the document suggests that a side meeting has no official
standing. That seems to me to mean it's no different than a group of
people who coincidentally participate in the IETF having a dinner or bar
meeting on any subject at any time. Or a hallway conversation, for that
matter. By the logic of this section, I can't really figure out how
"informal" a meeting would need to be before it no longer fell under NOTE
In an informal meeting, the participants should be able to follow any IPR
policy they like. I can even imagine an informal meeting covered by an
NDA, where the participants want to decide if they want to have further
discussions of a subject under IETSF IPR rules or not.
I think the best we can hope to do is suggest that side meeting organizers
and participants be explicit with their expectations on IPR and
confidentiality, so there is less chance for down-stream surprises. If we
want something stronger than that, then we really need to create a new
category of "official" meeting.
We actually ran this question past the IETF legal counsel before adding
that section to the document. It was his stated opinion that the Note Well
applies. I therefore don't see what we could do here.
Did the counsel describe the triggers that causes Note Well to apply in
general? Because if it automatically applies to an unofficial side meeting,
then it's hard for me to see where it _doesn't_ apply when 2 or more IETF
participants have a conversation. For example:
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Ietf mailing list