 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spencer From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf at 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 at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.