Re: Revision to Note Well

[Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Oh gods, I was desperately trying to stay out of this conversation...

Seeing as I'm still unclear on what the actual *problem* is, this may or may not be a reasonable suggestion.

I liked the old Note Well, but I get that not everyone reads it when it is flashed up on a slide. I also get that the summarized versions miss some subtleties / edge cases...

So, how about we simply present *both*.

"Here is an incomplete summary of our IPR stuff, but it should give you an overview. <click> This is the longer, more detailed and correct version. It is also posted online and you agreed to it when signing up. IANAL. If you have any concerns / don't understand what this says, go talk to *your* lawyer. <click> Now, agenda bashing..."

I just timed this - takes < 15 seconds to say (or <4 if you are EKR ;-)). 

W

On Thursday, February 6, 2014, <ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But I do see a point in having the chair say (or display) in the room,
"Just in case you didn't actually read what is posted on the web page[1]
that you acknowledged when you registered, please note: You've got IPR
disclosure responsibilities if you participate in this discussion at all
(including writing, speaking, singing or otherwise). If you or your
employer has IPR on this stuff, get with it!"

Then why not use this text or something equivalent to it? As opposed to what
started this discussion, or the update the IESG has now proposed that fails to
address the issues people have raised?

The fact that you can write this demonstrates it is possible to come up with
something that is both accurate and meets your additional criteria of being
simple and direct.

If we're not going to have simple text available in the room, let's at
least stop with the charade that posting the Note Well is meaningful,
and the chairs and shepherds and the IESG will simply have to continue
to deal with the regular stream of late disclosures.

... and this is nothing but a strawman. I strongly doubt anyone objecting here
is opposed to "simple" text as long as said text doesn't misstate what our IP
rules are.

                                Ned