Colleagues, As a long-time IETF'er and new WG chair, I want a) something I can say in the room as part of the opening to a meeting, if only to support Cullen's non-idiocy requirement; b) something that will make sense to those with the ability/inclination to pay attention to boilerplate; and c) something not wrong, for which Pete's requirements sound reasonable to me. It also sounds like Richard's suggested change meets the requirements, including the one that encourages us to err on the side of disclosure or non-participation. If we can't agree on that, I'd prefer to revert to the old wording while we hash this out, but I really hope more hashing isn't needed. best, Suzanne On Jan 25, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > John, > > Point taken and I understand how hard it is to get the right words. I’m not trying to propose exact words as I’m hoping that someone else can come up with something that meets Pete’s goals of relatively short and my goals of not looking like an idiot in some court room. > > Cullen > > > On Jan 25, 2014, at 7:46 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> --On Saturday, January 25, 2014 14:21 +0000 "Cullen Jennings >> (fluffy)" <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> ... >>>> - 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" >> >> And, of course, this drags us into the precise definition of >> "participate", an axle around which we've gotten wrapped several >> times. In particular, >> >>> 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. " >> >> but "to be in this meeting" means that sitting in the room >> during a WG session constitutes "participation". I like that >> definition, but we've been around it several times and my >> recollection is that I was in the minority. If "participate" >> for IPR purposes has any resemblance to "making a Contribution", >> e.g., opening your mouth, then the above statement is as false >> as some of those to which you object. >> >>> ... >>> 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. >> >> Yep. See earlier comments by Brian and myself, but this >> credibility effect is equally important. >> >> Perhaps the appropriate short statement might be more like: >> >> "If you are in this room two minutes from now or >> thereafter, you are deemed to have read, understood, and >> agreed to BCP 79. If you have not read and understood >> it, please leave until after you do." >> >> I hope that is a joke, but it is short, says nothing false, and >> doesn't get entangled with terms like "participate". >> >>> ... >> >> john >> >> >