Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>     John> --On Saturday, March 26, 2016 08:40 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
>     John> <[e-mail]> 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
>