--On Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:31 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
+1.
Which is why I suggest that we should support the Trustees'
proposed short term fix, to allow normal work to continue +/-
cutting and pasting some boilerplate. We do have a glitch in
5378 to mend, but let's get that off the critical path.
To repeat myself, I will support that fix the moment the
Trustees' come forward and say, explicitly, "this is the problem
we are trying to solve, this is the principle we are using as
the basis of the solution, and, with the advice of Counsel, we
believe that this fix represents a competent, best-efforts,
legal-text representation of that principle and nothing else".
I am not going to engage in trying to evaluate any more legal
documents in a way that involves making inferences about their
possible effects, direct or indirect, or about whether the text
is necessary and sufficient to the solution of a particular
problem or the implementation of a particular principle.
I also continue to be troubled by the fact that, in December,
more than one of the Trustees made public statements to the
effect that 5378 was in effect and that the Trustees could do
absolutely nothing about it, including this sort of fix, without
a new IETF consensus document that updated or replaed 5378.
Either we need to hear from the Trustees, with the support of
Counsel, that the interpretation offered in December was
incorrect and has been withdrawn, or anyone who submits a
document that incorporates the short term fix language risks
being told --by one or more Trustees or others-- that the
disclaimer does not count and that, but submitting the document,
they are still making the warrantees that have been the subject
of this discussion.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf