--On Friday, 24 January, 2014 15:03 -0600 Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > [MB] As a chair, I would not be reading the statement out > loud. As far as I'm concerned, my responsibility as a chair is > to make sure everyone in the room is aware of the IETF IPR > rules - it's not up to me to summarize them for the group. For both this new statement and its predecessors, it seems to me that we have to recognize the limitations of what we are trying to do and think about and balance policy plans accordingly. If your "responsibility as a chair is to make sure everyone in the room is aware..." then you need to repeat the announcement every time someone walks into the room who wasn't there when you made your check, showed your slides, or did your reading. Unless we are going to take to locking doors so that no one can enter a WG meeting after the "Note Well" announcement is made, such repetition would be disruptive and absurd. Similarly, if one were really inclined to "make sure", the right way to do it would be to ask at the beginning of the session for everyone who was familiar with the IPR policies to put up their hands, ask everyone else to leave, and then take pictures of everyone who was left for later correlation with the blue sheets. But that is almost equally absurd and the community has been fairly clear about its distaste for pictures that can be correlated with names. Given our registration procedures, we could take the possession of a badge as evidence that someone had been adequately exposed to the Note Well (if not actually to the BCP) and arrange to check for badges at meeting room doors. But we've decided, IMO, for good reason, to not do that either. > And, saying go read the details "if you're worried" isn't > sufficient. Everyone should have read the documents in detail > and make sure that anyone that has a say on how they disclose > and deal with IPR in IETF (i.e., corporate lawyers) are aware > of IETF policy. [/MB] Yes. But "the documents" there are BCP 79 (and probably BCP 78 and various Trust policies) and not some summary. And, no matter how much it might make those who are IPR-fascinated happy, as a WG participant and sometime chair, I don't want people spending time in WG meetings trying to decipher BCP79 and its implications (or bringing their lawyers with them to do so) any more than I want them buried in email -- I want them paying attention to the meeting, else why are they present. For someone (and their organizations if relevant) who is adequately familiar with BCP 79 before walking into the WG meeting, further announcements, regardless of their precise content, are a waste of time except maybe as a small reminder. For anyone who isn't, the announcements are useless unless we are just trying to tell them that they might be in big trouble if they stay in the room. best, john