Pete, inline …
On Jan 24, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 1/24/14 10:31 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
> 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):
>
> 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:
I certainly don’t plan to read it out in meetings I chair as I do not see any way that it will actually improve the situation at IETF but none the less I still basically agree with your design goals (include keeping it relatively short).
>
> - By participating here, you've agreed to our rules.
> - You can be recorded.
> - You have to disclose your IPR.
It’s this above point that I don’t believe is true. I think the point you need to make is, I think what you need to say is
"You have to disclose your IPR, or not participate in the discussion"
I do want to point out that if you truly wanted this short the total slides would say
"This meeting may be recorded. To be in this meeting you must agree to the rules in BCP 79. "
> 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.
>
> 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.
The core issue here is that you are making the summary be a sentence which is not wrong and which people can not and will not comply with. At that point you toss the whole thing into questions. People who need to testify in court on patents will have their credibility undermined by having agreed to this and then not doing it. You need to come up with a summary is not wrong even if it is not be complete.
I would also like to point out we are not talking about just what goes up on the front of the room but also what I must click agree to when I register.
>
> 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.
Good to hear, I am very hopeful that someone will come up with a suggestion that is not wrong, and at the same time does not increase the total length of the Note Well by more than lets say 20%. Would that work for you ?
>
> pr
>
> --
> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
>