On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 6:25 AM Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 06:17 Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >It was my understanding that note well always applied
>>
>>
>>
>> Same here.
>
>
> Maybe folks could provide a citation for this? Because I have exactly the opposite impression — that the Note Well only applies in contexts where it is explicitly stated that it does, e.g., official sessions.
>
> As Adrian says, there is a line. I understood that line to be something like, “The organizers of the meeting decide to apply Note Well”, just as one might apply the Chatham House Rule.
IANAL, these are only my muddled thoughts, etc, but that is completely
exactly 100% the opposite of my understanding:
" m. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": making a
Contribution, as described above, or **in any other way acting in
order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the
IETF Standards Process**. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, acting as a Working Group Chair or Area Director
constitutes "Participating" in all activities of the relevant
working group(s) he or she is responsible for in an area.
"Participant" and "IETF Participant" mean any individual
Participating in an IETF discussion or activity.
"
[ Emphasis mine ]
Perhaps if there was a side-meeting on the best way to plant potatoes
it wouldn't have to apply -- however, I think any realistic side
meeting at the IETF is likely to be "acting in order to influence the
outcome of a discussion relating to the IETF Standards Process."
If I were chairing a WG meeting and the VGA cable fell out just as I
was showing the Note Well, it's clear that it would still apply.
Similarly if I were to organize an interim meeting on V6OPS and forgot
to display the Note Well, I'd think it is clear it would still apply.
Side meetings might not be same thing, but other than "Luigi Iannone
@TPT" (which I simply have no idea what it's about) all of them seem
to me like they are likely to have discussions which may be "acting in
order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the IETF
Standards Process. "
> So side meetings could be covered if they chose, but not by default.
>
> In any case, the premise for this thread seems a bit confused, since side meetings are by definition not subject to IETF control.
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean by "IETF control" here --
if participants are "in any other way acting in order to influence the
outcome of a discussion relating to the IETF Standards Process" the
Note Well applies (at least according to my understanding).
The Note Well isn't something which gets invoked by summoning it, it
applies whenever I'm acting in a way which influences the discussions
about a document, etc.; the Note Well slide doesn't invoke the
protections, it *reminds* people of them.
Much of the note well process also falls into the "don't be a jerk"
category -- if we are sitting next to each other on a plane, and
complaining about flight delays, even though we are not "acting in
order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the IETF
Standards Process" if I know of IPR which affects your draft, I'd be a
jerk if I didn't tell you....
It feel to me like the IETF is drifting from a culture of "let's make
protocols to make the Internet work better; 'tis good for all and also
fun!" into a much more corporate / "how can I leverage this
organization for my benefit" feel - yes, companies have always tried
to optimize for themselves, but I'm talking more about the culture /
"feeling" of the IETF. It feels to me[0] like we are moving from (to
quote Spencer) "Do the right thing" to "the rules say I *can* do X, so
X is fine to do..."
W
[0]: Note: I haven't had my morning coffee, I might be more cynical
than normal...
> —RLB
--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
---maf
