Hi,
I think the text that Dave suggests looks good.
However, it's probably good to have a link to where the meaning of
"Participation" is defined, because that discussion also comes up every now and
then...
Regards,
Christer
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] on behalf of Dave Crocker
[dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net]
Sent: Saturday, 08 February 2014 1:32 AM
To: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Revision to Note Well
On 2/7/2014 10:39 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
I'm concerned that any abbreviated form will inadequately represent
the nuances of the full policy, and that if we create a single uniform
abbreviated version that must be shown at f2f meetings, that opens
loopholes.
Exactly. Any form of redundancy -- like a 'summary' -- creates an
opportunity for misunderstanding.
Also let's be careful about the nature of the problem here. Some folks
want to find an excuse to avoid the responsibility the IETF is imposing.
Such folk will not be satisfied, no matter what we do.
Some other folk really do need legitimate guidance. While I'd argue
that anyone who misunderstands the basic nature of IETF policy, after
seeing/hearing the existing Note Well, is probably working at that
misunderstanding.
Still, we could make things both simpler and stronger.
Here's what I suggest:
NOTE WELL
PARTICIPATION IN THE IETF CARRIES ESSENTIAL OBLIGATIONS.
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE DETAILS OF
THOSE OBLIGATIONS AND TO ENSURE THAT YOU SATISFY THEM:
* IETF IPR Disclosures Policy, as specified in BCP 79
* IETF Anti-harassment Policy, as specified in
ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html
In each case these need to be a single pointer to to a single document.
Of course, Jorge needs to vet this, but I believe this accomplishes only
and exactly the stated goal, with none of the problems created by
current or other proposed text.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net