Re: Problem with new Note Well

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




--On Sunday, 26 January, 2014 14:45 -0800 Ned Freed
<ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>...
>> Agreed.  Noting that the likely effect of "regardless of
>> employment agreements" if there really is a conflict in a
>> particular company-participant relations is "don't participate
>> in that" under the BCP and "don't attend" if the wording is
>> more brutal, we should have a lot of incentive to clean the
>> language up... and go back to the tested language until a
>> cleaned-up version is ready.
> 
> Mandating disclosure of 3rd party IPR drags in a whole lot
> more than employment contracts.

Of course.  And some of what gets dragged in is, or may be, more
important than the employment contracts.  I was just responding
to Brian's specific point and trying to suggest that "regardless
of employment agreements" was really not something one could say
if an open, broadly representative, IETF was part of one's
target.

I agree about "sloppy and wrong" too.

best,
   john








[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]