Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem

Cullen, in answer to your question, Yes.

A penultimate draft of the proposed changes to the Legal Provisions
document is available from the IETF Trust website at
http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html

Please look at the version labelled:
  Draft Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents after Community Last
Call (2009-02-09)
FYI this draft is currently before the Trustees, for a decision by end of
tomorrow.  If the Trustees accept this draft, then two final edits will be
required to formally adopt this policy document.  The edits will be:

1) To finalize and identify the "Effective Date" in the title on page 1, and
2) To insert the effective date into the header information of pages 2-7 of
the document.

Regards,

Ed Juskevicius

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> I've gotten a bit lost on all the changes. Would it be possible to send to
> the list a single email that summarizes the current proposed changes to the
> document published on the web sight? or just a new copy of the document?
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2009, at 5:41 PM, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
>
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:23 PM
>>> To: Marshall Eubanks
>>> Cc: Contreras, Jorge; Trustees; SM; ietf@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed
>>> work-around to thePre-5378 Problem
>>>
>>>  NEW PROPOSED
>>>>>
>>>>>  c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations.  If a
>>>>>
>>>> Contributor
>>>
>>>>     desires to limit the right to make modifications
>>>>>
>>>> and derivative
>>>
>>> s/desires/needs/
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think that "desires" is appropriate here - as John pointed
>>>> out, the contributor has no discretion here, except for their
>>>> judgement as to whether rights are available.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, in this case, it is the submitters choice, since we are
>>> talking about case (i) or (ii) (and not (iii) which has been the
>>> challenging case).  And "desires" is the wording that has been used
>>> here for a while.
>>>
>>> But that said, a more neutral term is fine by me, since the
>>> motivations for needing to select this may vary.
>>>
>>> How about "chooses"?
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>
>> "chooses" is fine with me
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trustees mailing list
> Trustees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees
>