On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/24/14 10:31 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:So here's the key for me (and maybe this means we have a separate Note Well for the room from the one on the web site):
Both Tom and Lars text would work for me. There seem to be so many ways to write it such that it is still brief but captures the key elements of the BCP.
Pete, I really think it is that putting a sentences in it that is clearly false is just wrong and I can not understand why you are arguing for that?
In the room, I want something short enough that the chairs might actually be inclined to read out loud. It should have the three basic messages:
- By participating here, you've agreed to our rules.
- You can be recorded.
- You have to disclose your IPR.
It seems like this last part is what Cullen and others are catching on, since it misses an essential caveat. You *don't* have to disclose IPR on things you where don't participate in the discussion.
Details on the above specified elsewhere. Go read if you're worried about it.
I want those statements extended as little as possible to keep it so that the chair might be willing to say it.
All Cullen proposed changing was the following:
OLD: "If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, or discussed in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you must disclose that fact."
NEW: "If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, or discussed in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you must disclose that fact, or not contribute to the discussion on that contribution"
Nine more words is really too long?
OLD: "If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, or discussed in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you must disclose that fact."
NEW: "If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, or discussed in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you must disclose that fact, or not contribute to the discussion on that contribution"
Nine more words is really too long?
--Richard
And (and this is probably the one where we might still disagree) if it's going to be inaccurate, and it will *have* to be inaccurate just by nature of being a summary, I want it to be inaccurate such that it includes *more* things to disclose than you are actually required to, not less. I don't want the excuse for not disclosing to be "I didn't understand all of the detail in BCP 79, but the Note Well sure didn't say that I had to disclose anything like *that*." If there's going to be an inaccuracy in the statement, I want it to be that BCP 79 says to disclose *less* than the summarized warning we give folks in the room.
Both Tom's and Lars's summaries are fine, but they're not reasonable things to read in the room.
We wrestled with this for a while. I'm open to suggestions. But the above are really my design criteria, at least for the one we put on a slide for the room.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478