--On Saturday, January 25, 2014 14:21 +0000 "Cullen Jennings
(fluffy)" <fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
- By participating here, you've agreed to our rules.
- You can be recorded.
- You have to disclose your IPR.
It's this above point that I don't believe is true. I
think the point you need to make is, I think what you need to
say is
"You have to disclose your IPR, or not participate in
the discussion"
And, of course, this drags us into the precise definition of
"participate", an axle around which we've gotten wrapped several
times. In particular,
I do want to point out that if you truly wanted this short the
total slides would say
"This meeting may be recorded. To be in this meeting you
must agree to the rules in BCP 79. "
but "to be in this meeting" means that sitting in the room
during a WG session constitutes "participation". I like that
definition, but we've been around it several times and my
recollection is that I was in the minority. If "participate"
for IPR purposes has any resemblance to "making a Contribution",
e.g., opening your mouth, then the above statement is as false
as some of those to which you object.
...
The core issue here is that you are making the summary be a
sentence which is not wrong and which people can not and will
not comply with. At that point you toss the whole thing into
questions. People who need to testify in court on patents will
have their credibility undermined by having agreed to this and
then not doing it. You need to come up with a summary is not
wrong even if it is not be complete.
Yep. See earlier comments by Brian and myself, but this
credibility effect is equally important.
Perhaps the appropriate short statement might be more like:
"If you are in this room two minutes from now or
thereafter, you are deemed to have read, understood, and
agreed to BCP 79. If you have not read and understood
it, please leave until after you do."
I hope that is a joke, but it is short, says nothing false, and
doesn't get entangled with terms like "participate".
...
john