Re-reading, apparently I was in a particularly foul mood last week. My
apologies for the amount of foulness that leaked through.
Closing the loop:
On 1/25/14 8:21 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
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"
For in the room, I'd be fine with that. If all you want to do is add "or
not participate in the discussion" to the end of what's there now, cool
with me.
I am completely ambivalent about what goes on the registration page or
elsewhere on the web site. I am fine with that text being different than
what is used in the room as the reminder. I would like something that is
more of a "plain language" version.
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. "
Well, that's the problem with the original text. All it says is "you
have to abide by BCP 79" and doesn't mention "IPR" at all. Nobody
reading it could be expected to know that there are IPR rules in the
IETF from only reading that. For practical purposes, I think that's
next-to-useless.
Anyway, it sounds like Jari is asking for a regroup. A fine plan.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478