I thought it applies also to e-mail participants :) Regards, Christer ________________________________________ From: Richard Barnes [rlb@xxxxxx] Sent: Saturday, 08 February 2014 8:47 PM To: Christer Holmberg Cc: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx; IETF discussion list Subject: Re: Revision to Note Well How about, "IF YOU ARE SEEING THIS TEXT, THEN YOU ARE A PARTICIPANT" :) --Richard On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: Hi, I think the text that Dave suggests looks good. However, it's probably good to have a link to where the meaning of "Participation" is defined, because that discussion also comes up every now and then... Regards, Christer ________________________________________ From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx<mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>] on behalf of Dave Crocker [dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>] Sent: Saturday, 08 February 2014 1:32 AM To: IETF discussion list Subject: Re: Revision to Note Well On 2/7/2014 10:39 AM, Scott Brim wrote: > I'm concerned that any abbreviated form will inadequately represent > the nuances of the full policy, and that if we create a single uniform > abbreviated version that must be shown at f2f meetings, that opens > loopholes. Exactly. Any form of redundancy -- like a 'summary' -- creates an opportunity for misunderstanding. Also let's be careful about the nature of the problem here. Some folks want to find an excuse to avoid the responsibility the IETF is imposing. Such folk will not be satisfied, no matter what we do. Some other folk really do need legitimate guidance. While I'd argue that anyone who misunderstands the basic nature of IETF policy, after seeing/hearing the existing Note Well, is probably working at that misunderstanding. Still, we could make things both simpler and stronger. Here's what I suggest: NOTE WELL PARTICIPATION IN THE IETF CARRIES ESSENTIAL OBLIGATIONS. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE DETAILS OF THOSE OBLIGATIONS AND TO ENSURE THAT YOU SATISFY THEM: * IETF IPR Disclosures Policy, as specified in BCP 79 * IETF Anti-harassment Policy, as specified in ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html<http://ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html> In each case these need to be a single pointer to to a single document. Of course, Jorge needs to vet this, but I believe this accomplishes only and exactly the stated goal, with none of the problems created by current or other proposed text. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net<http://bbiw.net>