Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees inviteyour review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to thePre-5378 Problem

Spencer

From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
>
>> On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:58 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
>>...
>
>>> Given that we've historically weeded out the contributor-list
>>> on a   document to "four or less", even if there were really
>>> dozens of   "contributors" at the alleged insistence of the
>>> RFC Editor, I don't   see how any older document or even a
>>> majority of new documents-in-  progress could be adapted to
>>> the new rules.

[deleted down to ]

> If one takes the definition of "Contribution" and "Contributor"
> used in 5378 (and 3978, etc.) -- as distinct from the RFC
> Editor's definition -- seriously, then the first posting of an
> I-D could contain text contributed to a mailing list months
> earlier.   The length of time between first relevant
> Contribution and the publication date of an RFC can be very
> long, certainly measured in years in some cases.   That implies
> that there will be a very long time before we can assume that
> every Contribution in a document pending publication occurred
> since 10 November (or whenever 5378 can be legally assumed to be
> effective).
>
> It is clearly outside the authority of the Trust to undo that
> "everyone transfers rights at submission time" 5378 model, even
> if it can effectively be made non-retroactive (which the
> work-around appears intended to do).  If we decide, in
> retrospect, that we don't like it, either someone needs to post
> an I-D that is much more radical than the three posted so far or
> we need to spin up a WG.  I suspect, given other conversations,
> that the IESG will insist on a WG unless there is overwhelming
> consensus for a particular I-D and I believe there is no
> possibility for overwhelming consensus for anything in this area.

(1) Between Dean's concern (author-list pruning) and John's concern 
(contributions through postings to mailing lists, possibly months before the 
text appears in a draft), I'm having a very difficult time understanding how 
new editors are supposed to even know who contributed what to a draft when a 
new editor takes over an existing document, much less which contributors has 
granted copyright rights under 5378-as-it-exists-today.

(2) I encourage the adoption of the proposed workaround text. I agree with 
Eric's proposed changes if they are acceptable.

(3) I would strongly discourage spinning up a General-Area working group 
without adopting the workaround - as an editor, even if I thought all 
contributors had granted 5378-as-it-exists-today rights, I'm not sure why I 
would make such a declaration. What if I was wrong?

In short - please do something quickly, because the current situation is 
making things harder for people who want to get work done in the IETF, and 
that should trump every other consideration, IMO.

Thanks,

Spencer 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf