|
Dave,
This is getting into legal fineprint now.
Just from a process perspective to answer to your question:
(in my work at the IAOC, I have seen this type of question before
and heard some legal advise on it - but I am not a lawyer, nor
giving legal advise (disclaimer)...)
Actually to distinguish what is under IETF notewell and not, it
does not matter where the mailing-list is hosted.
E.g. two IETFers could have a call on the phone or meet over
coffee in the garden and talk about a subject related to the IETF
work and if they perceive they are working within the IETF at that
moment (and that the Notewell applies), they are doing so under
the IETF notewell. Where the conversation happens is not of
importance.
Best regards, Tobias
Ps.: having said that, I did not think shutting down the non-WG
mailing-list was the best approach.... - a non-WG mailing-list
does not cost much and we the IETF are here to allow for people to
come together and have conversations about work related to or
leading to the IETF. And as long as it is not a WG yet, the hurdle
to come together should be as low as possible. Shutting down a
pre-BOF mailing-list because it is not of BOF quality yet, is IMHO
not in supporting the inclusion and mission of the IETF. But hey,
different ADs have different approaches. And as I said before, in
the end it does not matter where the mailing-list is hosted. ;-)
On 05/02/15 05:18, Dave Cridland wrote:
That's much clearer, and to my mind more worrying.
Any discussion outside of the IETF is outside the
IETF, whether it's within a group, or a list, or a pub on the
corner, or whatever. The IETF surely cannot impose its IPR rules
to the world at large.
If the results of that discussion are later entered
as a contribution to the IETF, the IETF's IPR rules apply to the
person contributing, not to the originator.
If the list discussion needs to happen under the IETF
rules, the list needs to be formally an IETF one.
Note that I'm not concerned with the specifics of
whether this list ought to exist or whether the goals are
defined - just whether an non-IETF list should be under IETF
rules.
On 4 Feb 2015 21:02, "Kathleen Moriarty"
< kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Wed, Feb
4, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> So you want this list to be under IETF rules, because
it's intended that
> IETF contributions will happen from it, but you don't
want it to be an IETF
> list, because people might treat it as being IETF
contributions.
My request was in the list of steps I provided to Hosnieh and
that was
just to ensure that those contributing to a draft outside of
IETF
understand that the NoteWell applies to content on that draft
to be
contributed. It's important for this to be understood by
contributors. My request was for her to work with a small
group and I
never suggested a list. I sent her this list several weeks
ago along
with a private note to help her with next steps. The list I
sent her
is the same that I posted.
I'm going to get back to reading drafts and not answer for
others in
this discussion.
Best regards,
Kathleen
>
> I see there's a distinction, I'm not clear why it was
drawn, but I'll take
> your word for it that it's not as political as it sounds.
>
> On 4 Feb 2015 20:27, "Kathleen Moriarty" <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> I didn't read this thread the same way you did. I
read it as Ted
>> pointing out that the Notewell will be important for
contributors to
>> understand applies for any submission that comes to
the IETF.
>>
>> You can look at the SecAuth archive to see why it was
shutdown. Many
>> were glad as the work was taking too long to become
focused into an
>> achievable set of goals. A push to go back to the
drawing board was
>> needed. If it's an IETF list, many feel they have to
follow it and
>> the work wasn't ready for that yet. We'll
re-evaluate the proposal
>> when they have had time to narrow the scope and
figure out what
>> problem they want to solve most.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>> > Do I understand this right? The original mailing
list was shut down by
>> > the
>> > IETF, and folks are now complaining that the
third party list isn't an
>> > IETF
>> > one? Seriously?
>> >
>> > On 4 Feb 2015 14:29, "Tobias Gondrom" <tobias.gondrom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 04/02/15 21:12, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:14 PM, Tobias Gondrom
<tobias.gondrom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> just fyi: the mailing-list does on its
sign-up page (in the first line)
>> >> make the explicit statement to operate under
the IETF
>> >> Notewell:https://mail.rozanak.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnauth
>> >>
>> >> That's precisely what I would advise doing
in this situation. It
>> >> might
>> >> be worth adding that the list is informal
and is not sponsored by the
>> >> IETF,
>> >> though; otherwise people might get the
impression that it's an official
>> >> IETF
>> >> mailing list. You should also disclose
whether or not the list is
>> >> being
>> >> archived, although since it's not an IETF
mailing list, whether you do
>> >> so is
>> >> not up to us. If the list is not archived,
however, it might be
>> >> difficult
>> >> and involve a painful discovery process if
for some reason the Note
>> >> Well had
>> >> to be enforced in a lawsuit. So while
keeping an archive places an
>> >> additional burden on Hosnieh, it is probably
a win for other
>> >> participants.
>> >>
>> >> (And yes, I realize you were talking to the
other Ted... :)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Just fyi: I am not the administrator of the
mailing-list. I just
>> >> happened
>> >> to sign-up and noticed that the notewell
is/was already there on the
>> >> sign-up
>> >> page. It seems the new list only got needed
up as the Sec AD (Kathleen)
>> >> shut
>> >> down the previous IETF BOF mailing-list.
>> >>
>> >> And to answer your second question: it
appears the new list is being
>> >> archived, as is also a basic mailman
function.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards, Tobias
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
--
Best regards,
Kathleen
|