John,
I disagree both in the belief that the Note Well is
clear on this and the sense of your argument that anyone
participating in any part of a discussion can be made
retroactively responsible for the entire discussion.
The Note Well is not clear because it makes sweeping
statements about the way in which BCP 78 and 79 may apply
to "contributions". The obvious (but not clear) intent is
that what you contribute is now subject to provisions of
these BCPs that apply to contributions. What is both more
subtle and not clearly excluded is that _only_ what you've
contributed applies and that contributing to a work is not
the same as "authoring" it.
I refer directly to the required RFC inclusions that
specifically use the word "author" and their rights and
responsibilities with respect to IPR and copyrights. If I
make a comment about a rev -01 version of a draft and stop
participating in the work, I may not be held accountable
for IPR I may know of but which did not enter into the text
until sometime after I stopped looking at it.
Similarly, if I object to work that has been done, you
may not attach my name to it against my objections - unless
either the Note Well, and the BCPs, both explicitly include
a provision for implied consent. If that is the case, now,
then it is most certainly not "clear" that it is.
This is the negative side of the discussion going on.
People are focusing on reasons why someone might want to be
included in acknowledgements. I am merely pointing out that
it is also possible that someone might not want this.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com]
--> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 1:53 PM
--> To: Gray, Eric; Spencer Dawkins
--> Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: RE: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last
--> Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching)
-->
-->
-->
--> --On Wednesday, 07 June, 2006 12:33 -0400 "Gray, Eric"
--> <Eric(_dot_)Gray(_at_)marconi(_dot_)com> wrote:
-->
--> > Spencer,
--> >
--> > This opens up yet another can of worms. Suppose that
--> > everybody who makes a comment on a draft (substantive, or
--> > otherwise) has to be listed and every one listed is bound by
--> > BCPs relating to IPR, copyright, etc. in RFC content.
-->
--> They are so bound... read the Note Well. Whether they should be
--> so listed is a separate issue.
-->
--> > What happens if someone - perhaps having suggested that
--> > a word was misspelled - would prefer not to be bound by the
--> > BCPs (or perhaps is not permitted to be so bound)? Can they
--> > request to be left out? If they do, can an editor leave them
--> > out?
-->
--> Too bad. If they participate in the IETF at the level of either
--> attending meetings or saying anything, they are stuck. While
--> there are guidelines now (see Bob Braden's note) and guidelines
--> can always be further tuned, I think we need to give some
--> discretion to document editors about who should be listed --at
--> least until and unless we have a clear definition of, e.g., WG
--> membership.
-->
--> > It occasionally happens now that a draft departs from
--> > the original direction that some of the contributors wanted
--> > it to go, and - slightly less often - those that disagree
--> > with the outcome ask to be de-listed. There are good and
--> > reasonable reasons to allow this - especially as there may
--> > be very strong reactions from a particular employer that is
--> > seen as "advocating" something they do not intend to do.
--> >
--> > In such cases, these early contributors provided much
--> > of the content - even if the over-all outcome is not in line
--> > with their intentions. So, again, would we be able to omit
--> > their names?
-->
--> I have often dealt with that issue in acknowledgements by being
--> very explicit that all contributors may not agree with the
--> conclusions reached as a consequence of their suggestions (or
--> with their suggestions included). An even more extreme case
--> exists than the ones that you mention: someone raises an issue
--> and preference and the document is ultimately clarified to
--> reflect exactly the opposite preference. In some of these
--> cases, the document would not have addressed the topic at all
--> had the issue not been raised. The person who raised the issue
--> may still have made a contribution significant enough to justify
--> acknowledgement but may have always been in violent disagreement
--> with the conclusion reached by the IETF process about how to
--> deal with it.
-->
--> The underlying problem here is not unique to the IETF. And
--> people who don't want to contribute or be bound by the rules
--> should avoid participation -- there isn't any "whoops, I don't
--> like the results so the rules should retroactively not apply to
--> me and the fact that I participated at all should be erased"
--> option. Having such an option with regard to rule-conforming
--> would result in chaos. Again, the Note Well is very clear about
--> this (and there is a parallel discussion going in circles,
--> perhaps parallel ones, in the IPR WG).
-->
--> john
-->
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf