See below...
Spencer
From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:58 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
...
Given that we've historically weeded out the contributor-list
on a document to "four or less", even if there were really
dozens of "contributors" at the alleged insistence of the
RFC Editor, I don't see how any older document or even a
majority of new documents-in- progress could be adapted to
the new rules.
[deleted down to ]
If one takes the definition of "Contribution" and "Contributor"
used in 5378 (and 3978, etc.) -- as distinct from the RFC
Editor's definition -- seriously, then the first posting of an
I-D could contain text contributed to a mailing list months
earlier. The length of time between first relevant
Contribution and the publication date of an RFC can be very
long, certainly measured in years in some cases. That implies
that there will be a very long time before we can assume that
every Contribution in a document pending publication occurred
since 10 November (or whenever 5378 can be legally assumed to be
effective).
It is clearly outside the authority of the Trust to undo that
"everyone transfers rights at submission time" 5378 model, even
if it can effectively be made non-retroactive (which the
work-around appears intended to do). If we decide, in
retrospect, that we don't like it, either someone needs to post
an I-D that is much more radical than the three posted so far or
we need to spin up a WG. I suspect, given other conversations,
that the IESG will insist on a WG unless there is overwhelming
consensus for a particular I-D and I believe there is no
possibility for overwhelming consensus for anything in this area.
(1) Between Dean's concern (author-list pruning) and John's concern
(contributions through postings to mailing lists, possibly months before the
text appears in a draft), I'm having a very difficult time understanding how
new editors are supposed to even know who contributed what to a draft when a
new editor takes over an existing document, much less which contributors has
granted copyright rights under 5378-as-it-exists-today.
(2) I encourage the adoption of the proposed workaround text. I agree with
Eric's proposed changes if they are acceptable.
(3) I would strongly discourage spinning up a General-Area working group
without adopting the workaround - as an editor, even if I thought all
contributors had granted 5378-as-it-exists-today rights, I'm not sure why I
would make such a declaration. What if I was wrong?
In short - please do something quickly, because the current situation is
making things harder for people who want to get work done in the IETF, and
that should trump every other consideration, IMO.
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf