Re: Problem with new Note Well
2014-01-25 13:16:02
Colleagues,
As a long-time IETF'er and new WG chair, I want a) something I can say in the
room as part of the opening to a meeting, if only to support Cullen's
non-idiocy requirement; b) something that will make sense to those with the
ability/inclination to pay attention to boilerplate; and c) something not
wrong, for which Pete's requirements sound reasonable to me.
It also sounds like Richard's suggested change meets the requirements,
including the one that encourages us to err on the side of disclosure or
non-participation.
If we can't agree on that, I'd prefer to revert to the old wording while we
hash this out, but I really hope more hashing isn't needed.
best,
Suzanne
On Jan 25, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
<fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
John,
Point taken and I understand how hard it is to get the right words. I’m not
trying to propose exact words as I’m hoping that someone else can come up
with something that meets Pete’s goals of relatively short and my goals of
not looking like an idiot in some court room.
Cullen
On Jan 25, 2014, at 7:46 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
--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
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, (continued)
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Tom Taylor
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Pete Resnick
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Richard Barnes
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Paul Hoffman
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, John C Klensin
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, John C Klensin
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: Problem with new Note Well,
Suzanne Woolf <=
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Scott Brim
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Pete Resnick
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Mary Barnes
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, John C Klensin
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Geoff Mulligan
- Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), Jari Arkko
- Re: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), Scott Brim
- RE: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), Mulligan, Geoff
- Re: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), Scott Brim
- Re: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), Phillip Hallam-Baker
|
|
|