[cabfpub] Reposting on behalf of others
kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
Mon Mar 2 19:00:09 UTC 2015
Ryan and Gerv – do Google and Mozilla require members of the public to sign (click-through) IPR agreement to post to your various lists? If not, why not?
I would be in favor of eliminating the Forum’s IPR agreement requirement for public postings (especially if that is what Google and Mozilla do).
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 10:52 AM
To: Kirk Hall (RD-US)
Cc: Gervase Markham; CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Reposting on behalf of others
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:37 AM, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>> wrote:
Agreed. So how would you propose we change our bylaws so we can hear from people like Julien? Would you support an amendment that lets Members repost messages (with permission) that are sent to the Questions@ email address if they think the messages are valid and significant? Or maybe we create a new email address Comments@ as a public list-serv, and any Member can repost messages that the Member thinks are worthy of consideration by the Members as a whole.
I think both of these suffer from the IPR concerns that lead to the creation of an IPR policy to begin with.
I strongly dislike the proposals that rely on "as the member sees fit" - that sets up a rather arbitrary process. As I've suggested, if such a proposal were adopted, I would happily forward any and all messages to the public list, in the spirit of openness, which I think is precisely what some members would prefer to avoid.
Given that first and foremost we must lie in the bed we made and comply with the IPR policy that was duly ratified by the Forum, I don't think member discretion works. If we say it can only be members of the public who have executed the IPR agreement, than I can think of quite a few people who would have tremendously useful contributions to make, but for whom the IPR policy, as written, is too burdensome.
The first step towards allowing public participation would seem to be to clarify the IPR policy protections. Consider (in addition to the IETF Note Well) how the W3C considers contributions from the public - http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq.html#non-participants . Of course, this was rejected during our IPR policy deliberations.
On Eddy’s point – I’m less worried about flame wars if we separate out public postings from Member postings (so the Member postings don’t get submerged).
We clearly don’t want to block helpful and meaningful emails like Julien’s, as there is clearly information out there that can help us make good decisions.
With no disrespect to Julien, there was no new information there. There was only a rehash of past discussions, many on points that you yourself had raised and been addressed. Now, I'm certainly in favour of provide clarification and always happy to explain further, but if your fear is submerging members emails or overwhelming the membership, then I think your reposting contributed more to that than perhaps realized.
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public