At 10:13 AM -0700 9/25/08, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
><snip>
>The proposed IETF IPR policy allows the public to modify the code present in
>IETF specifications but not to use that same specification to create
>modified text to document that modified code! Does anyone here honestly
>believe this is justified?
I'll be the existence proof on this one: I believe it is justified. The
reasons for it have been discussed at length and a conclusion based
on rough consensus has been reached.
>You admit: The working group took no vote. Nobody ever does in IETF. It is
>thus possible for a small group of people who have the stomach to attend to
>boring IPR discussions to come to an irrational conclusion.
That conclusion seems at this point to have been supported by the
rough consensus judged of the IETF Last Call and the deliberations of the
IESG. I agree that many folks run pounding from the room when these
discussions occur, but the rough consensus of those who care
seems to be how we do things in general around here. I also
agree that the discussions are often boring, often frustrating,
and I believe everyone involved will be happier when the WG closes
down.
Rough consensus is not voting, and the ways it works are often
troublesome on matters of principle, because they don't admit
of the same kinds of compromise that engineering trade-offs
do. But voting in an organization with no defined membership
would be far worse here, as the ballot-stuffing campaigns would
be damaging on even more levels.
regards,
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
