Ted Ts'o wrote:
So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and assume
that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise to the
reader".... care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* it could
be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, and still be
useful in terms of meeting your stated goals?
I've made no such assumptions. I've submitted a couple of process documents
from W3C that can be modified easily to fit the IETF model. I thought John
and Steven would be satisfied with a rough draft. Sort of like Windows might
provide a model for a Linux open source program, without the actual code
being yet written. :-)
Now that I've submitted this draft, I refuse to be told it isn't a draft,
although I admit it isn't in the proper format. Any process bigots want to
comment on that flaw tonight too?
I specifically said that the W3C Patent and Standards Working Group (PSIG)
charter (http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/) and *section 7* of the W3C Patent
Policy (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/) would be
models for an IETF IPR Advisory Board. Neither of those specific document
sections implies anything mandatory about RAND or royalty-free or any other
of the political patent battles that divide us. They are merely open process
descriptions, just like a draft here ought to be.
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Theodore Tso [mailto:tytso(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:25 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 05:40:46PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Steven Bellovin wrote:
All that said, the above is my strawman that I've just torched. This
is why we need a draft -- until we have one, we won't know if it's a
plausible, useful idea or not. In fact, a metadraft -- one that
simply
set out the questions that a concrete proposal should address -- would
be a worthwhile contribution in its own regard.
In honor of open source, I'm glad to submit someone else's work as my
first
draft: http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/.
This is an effective working model. I'm sure it would have to be revised
to
fit IETF's more democratic operations.
This model works if you have closed working groups and no one is
allowed to participate without first going through a huge amount of
bureaucratic rigamarole, and where someone can't even poke their head
into a meeting room without being explicitly invited by the chair. It
doesn't work at all in an IETF model which is much more open.
So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and assume
that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise to the
reader".... care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* it could
be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, and still be
useful in terms of meeting your stated goals?
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf