At 3:45 PM -0700 10/19/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: >Ted Hardie wrote: >> Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position. You actually >> want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of >> the IPR working group, beforehand without letting the community actually >> discuss it. Thanks for re-affirming my faith in your consistency. > >You're welcome. To state it more fairly, I want the result I'm arguing for >to be built into the charter so that the WG can examine fairly what it will >take to reach that goal. The WG cannot adopt a policy for IETF, only propose >one. But the WG's work should be goal-directed. What you seem to be missing is a step where the WG agrees that this is the goal. The steps we've taken in the past are: Check to see if we have agreement to open the current policies for change. If we have that agreement, develop proposals for what that change would be. Agree on the set of changes in broad scope. Write documents that set out the new policies. Get community consensus on the documents which lay out the changes and the resulting policies. You don't have step one done yet, and you are jumping to the end of 3, where you are pre-supposing what the result of the agreed set of changes would be. > >By the way, that's not such a change of tactic for that particular IPR-WG. >You previously argued in committee that the current IETF patent policy is >NOT a problem, and in that spirit the IPR-WG previously buried every >counter-proposal we made as "off-charter"! I'm not sure what you mean by "in committee" above. I have certainly made comments on the IPR working group mailing list. It has open archives, and I encourage folks who are considering opening up the charter to consider changes to it actually read them, along with the documents it has produced. I also note above the nice shift in subject, from "you previously argued" to "in that spirit the IPR-WG previously buried". Let me rephrase this: "After discussion that included comments by you (Ted Hardie), the IPR working group came to consensus not to reconsider the patent policy. After that decision, proposals to change it were ruled off charter." I had a heck of lot less to do with it than that makes it appear since I have never chaired the group, written any of its documents, or been its AD; I have my opinions, but I never buried anything. >So let's play the charter game >fairly, please, by the same rules you played them. Let's run the charter process fairly indeed. We can start by not pretending it's a win/loss game, and agree that it is a process of getting the community to agree on what work it is willing to take on, without artificially starting with a "specific goal" that presupposes an agreement that has not been demonstrated. Have a lovely weekend Larry, Ted >/Larry Rosen > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf