--On Friday, January 24, 2014 14:24 -0600 Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
And (and this is probably the one where we might still
disagree) if it's going to be inaccurate, and it will *have*
to be inaccurate just by nature of being a summary, I want it
to be inaccurate such that it includes *more* things to
disclose than you are actually required to, not less. I don't
want the excuse for not disclosing to be "I didn't understand
all of the detail in BCP 79, but the Note Well sure didn't say
that I had to disclose anything like *that*." If there's going
to be an inaccuracy in the statement, I want it to be that BCP
79 says to disclose *less* than the summarized warning we give
folks in the room.
...
We wrestled with this for a while. I'm open to suggestions.
But the above are really my design criteria, at least for the
one we put on a slide for the room.
Pete,
If the announcement appears to require more than what is
actually required, you will divide the part of the audience that
pays any attention at all [1] into three categories:
(1) Those who will be scared off by it, or who will discuss it
with their corporate lawyers who will be scared off. Perhaps
that will be because they will be concerned that the superset
notice is what they were actually told and for which they might
be held accountable, perhaps they conclude that, in the event of
confusion, conservatism is best. Perhaps something else, but
the net effect is likely to be as much to reduce IETF
participation by those who are concerned as it would be to get
more disclosures.
(2) Those who will say "Well, the announcement distorts the
meaning of BCP 79, so there must be loopholes they are trying to
hide. Let's go find them."
(3) Those who will go reread BCP 79, and do exactly what it says
regardless of your exaggerations.
Remembering that our goal should be to enable and encourage as
much participation as possible consistent with getting the
disclosures we actually need, I don't see most of those options
as desirable.
john
[1] Some of us have a talent for tuning out boilerplate. As a
sometime WG chair, if I have any choice at all, I won't spend
time trying to read things that I'm pretty sure that those who
will listen have already seen and those who won't, won't (I
think that puts my position in alignment with Paul Hoffman's).
As an individual, as soon as the WG Chair says something that
implies "I have this obligatory statement to read that you have
heard before", I'm likely to decide it is an invitation to open
a tunnel to my mailbox (or equivalent). If that describes a
significant set of patterns, then anything you do to alter the
in-meeting version is a waste of time.