Re: Applying "Note Well" to side meetings

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 06:25:12AM -0400, Richard Barnes wrote:
> 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.

I've long understood that Note Well applies when and only when
('WWHEN'?) it is invoked, and should be invoked whenever IETF work is
discussed among participants with different employers even if the
meeting is not an official IETF meeting.

Depending on the cast of attendees I might not invoke Note Well in a
side meeting with an unstated understanding that we're not out to screw
each other on IP.  However, this is a bad habit, and I should always
invoke Note Well when discussing IETF work or potential IETF work with
colleagues from other organizations.  It's a bad habit not just because
my friends might purposefully or otherwise screw me, but also because I
might forget to invoke Note Well when others are around.

Official IETF meetings are (I guess) required to invoke the Note Well,
whether they be interim or not, whether they be remote or not, but it
still needs to be invoked in order to really apply.

Bar BoFs are unofficial meetings, and thus not required to invoke Note
Well, thus too arguably there is no implied intent to have Note Well
apply to them, which is why Note Well should be invoked explicitly.  My
advice would be that Note Well always be invoked at the start of the bar
BoF and in any email threads for organizing a bar BoF and any
invitations sent (so that late arrivals understand the expectation that
Note Well applies).

It must not be a common occurrence that bar BoF participants intend Note
Well to _not_ apply.  It would be nice if Note Well could be made to
impliedly apply by default, but I guess that's not feasible.

> 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.  So side meetings could be covered
> if they chose, but not by default.

+1

> In any case, the premise for this thread seems a bit confused, since side
> meetings are by definition not subject to IETF control.

A lot of work happens in bar BoFs though, so it's a fair question.  So
either we shouldn't have them at all or we should acknowledge that they
are a thing.  The IETF can't control a bar BoF, but a) it can provide
advice about them, and b) it could provide rooms for ad-hoc BoFs with
Note Well plastered on the walls :)

Nico
--