If the documents clearly define the term "design team" as teams that are created by a decision in an IETF process, I have very few problem extending "IETF contribution" to contributions to the design team. If (as I've sometimes seen) everyone who meets to hash out an idea wants to call themselves + their friends is a "design team", then I see a problem with the extension. The lunchtime "bar BOF" would be a nice test case - arranged by WG chairs over the WG (or IETF non-WG) mailing list, it would be an IETF activity with IETF contribution; arranged between friends on the way out of the preceding WG meeting, it would (I think) not be. Den 25. mars 2016 21:41, skrev Sam Hartman: >>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes: > > John> --On Saturday, March 26, 2016 08:40 +1300 Brian E Carpenter > John> <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> It's clear that any design team *output* is a contribution. But > >> if a group of friends have a chat over lunch, not as a design > >> team mandated by WG chairs, and one of them mentions a silly idea > >> that is rejected in favour of a good idea that the group later > >> proposes to the WG, is that silly idea a contribution? I don't > >> think so. > > If it's a design team that thinks of itself as a design team, I really > want the silly idea to count as an IETF contribution. > If I get together with you to do IETF work, part of why I'm willing to > do so is because we've agreed that you'll disclose any IP. If I'm doing > IETF work with you, I want you to be obligated to disclose by the time > you're advocating for a specific position. > > As an individual who may some day again contribute to the IETF, that's > really important to me. > > Now, there's ambiguity. I realize a group of friends involved in the > IETF can get together for purposes other than IETF work. > > However, speaking for myself, I'd be less willing to do work in an IETF > where a lunchtime discussion for IETF work didn't count as contributions > than one where it did. > > I think waiting for an idea to be presented in an ID, at the microphone, > or on a list is too late. > A lot of advocacy for positions happens before then, and you can get in > bad IPR situations if you are not required to disclose by the time that > advocacy starts. > > --Sam >