1.k in draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04: scope of "participation"
Barry Leiba <barryleiba <at> computer.org>
2013-04-09 16:56:16 GMT
> 1.k - overhauled "participation" definition to indicate that in-person
> attendance at an IETF session is "participation" in the session. Sending a
> message to a mailing list is participation in that discussion, but merely
> subscribing to or getting messages from an email list does NOT constitute
> participation (i.e., no IPR disclosure required if you just lurk on a list).
I do not believe that this accurately reflects consensus in the BoF.
So I went to the text to see exactly what's there:
k. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": means 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, attending all or part of a session at a live IETF
meeting is deemed to mean participating in the entire session.
Sending a message to an email list is deemed to constitute
participating in the associated email discussion for its entire
duration and any successor email discussions. Likewise, simply
subscribing to or reading messages received from an IETF email
list does not constitute participation in the relevant IETF
As I remember the BoF, we had two main discussions on which consensus
1. Is one allowed to attend a meeting session and *not* participate.
I believe we had rough consensus for "yes". Arguments included BoFs
and other proposals of new work, where one could not anticipate what
was going to come up, and situations where attendance of an author or
subject-matter expert on one topic was desirable, and it would not
serve us well to keep her away because of disclosure issues on another
2. What is the scope of "participation" in a meeting session? If one
participates in one topic, can one be silent on another and not be
considered a participant in it? On this there was not rough
consensus: Russ judged about 2/3 in favour of "the scope is the full
session," and 1/3 for "the scope can be more granular than that."
The new text is clearly wrong with respect to (1) in the second
sentence, and is assuming a resolution of (2) in the second sentence
for which there is not (yet?) consensus.
In the last sentence, "likewise" seems like the wrong word. Perhaps
"On the other hand," would be better.