> On Apr 12, 2016, at 2:29 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --On Monday, April 11, 2016 15:33 -0700 Alissa Cooper > <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Personally, I'd love to see the draft talk about AD >>> participation just like it talks about other people's >>> participation. If I really haven't participated in WG X, >>> well, I haven't, even if my co-AD owns the group :-) And if >>> I did participate, well, I should declare the IPR that I know >>> of :-) >> >> +1 >> This is what did not make sense to me about the draft. > > Alissa, > > I'm fine with the above, but I think there is a delicate line > involved. Let me try to explain it this way. As a random > member of the community, whether I'm participating in a WG, or > even actively monitoring it, is fairly clear. If, for example, > I'm attending its meetings (f2f or remotely) or signed up for > its mailing list, the community should be able to assume that > I'm watching the work in that WG and should be required to make > relevant IPR disclosures even if I don't actually say anything > or otherwise generate Contributions. If I do none of those > things but occasionally check on mailing list archives, read > Last Call announcements, I think the community needs to take my > word for it if I claim to be "not participating". > > I think things are a little different (but only a little) if > there is management involvement. If you are the AD responsible > for a WG, then I think the community gets to assume that you > know what its work items are, have approved document editors, > and have at least read the abstracts of the various drafts, > i.e., that you are participating. If you are some other AD in > the same area, well, areas differ a lot and over time. In some > cases, ADs shadow each other as a mutual backup arrangements and > I'd expect to be able to treat all ADs in the same area as > "participating" in all WGs. In others, WGs get divided up among > ADs, after which the area might as well be as many separate ones > as there are ADs. At IETF evaluation time, any ADs who record a > position other that "abstain" on a spec, or to engage in any > IESG discussion about it, has presumably studied that spec > closely enough to incur disclosure obligations if IPR is known > to them because making a decision to adopt (or not) is clearly > "participation". The same issue might exist with Co-chairs of a > WG with many tasks. I'd normally assume that each one is > familiar with and participating in every work item, but it isn't > hard to imagine situations in which work might be split up along > clear boundaries with one co-chair getting involved in the work > of the other only at around the time of Last Call if then. > > All of that said, I think that trying to create a collection of > very specific rules or definitions to cover each case and > variations on it is almost certain to cause more harm than good. > I think the intent of the rules -- that anyone who has > contributed to a spec or put themselves in a position in which > they influence an IETF decision to adopt (or not) or publish (or > not) has disclosure obligations (whether direct or third-party > as discussed in the I-D). My expectation is that WG Chairs and, > to even a greater extent, ADs, will be sensitive to the intent > of the rules. To do otherwise would be a breach of the trust > the community placed in them and that would be at least as > serious, perhaps more, than breaching the letter of the IPR > rules. > > If we need rule changes in that area, they probably lie in > making recalls more feasible rather than more case analysis in > the IPR document(s). If the latter documents need anything > extra, perhaps it is an explicit statement to the effect of > "Because of the trust the community places in them and the > consensus-determination and decision authority associated with > their positions, IETF Leadership including WG Chairs and Nomcom > appointees are expected to be especially diligent in observing > the intent of these rules”. WFM Alissa > > best. > john > > >