ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Revision to Note Well

2014-02-08 16:06:33
IF YOU SEE THIS, WHETHER IN A PRESENTATION OR IN A DOCUMENT, YOU ARE.....

I am minded of Jeff Foxworthy's wisdom here.

-Sandy Wills

On 2/8/2014 2:58 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:

I thought it applies also to e-mail participants :)

Regards,

Christer
________________________________________
From: Richard Barnes [rlb(_at_)ipv(_dot_)sx]
Sent: Saturday, 08 February 2014 8:47 PM
To: Christer Holmberg
Cc: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Revision to Note Well

How about, "IF YOU ARE SEEING THIS TEXT, THEN YOU ARE A PARTICIPANT" :)

--Richard


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Christer Holmberg 
<christer(_dot_)holmberg(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com<mailto:christer(_dot_)holmberg(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com>>
 wrote:

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<mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>] on behalf 
of Dave Crocker [dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net<mailto: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<http://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<http://bbiw.net>




--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.