Subject: Disappointed in meeting schedule

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:50:29 -0500 (EST)

Running today's meeting in a manner that prevents us from having open
mic time did not allow us to have a fair consideration of the issues.
I think that this was very poorly handled.

--Sam

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:46:38 +0100

> I think that this was very poorly handled.

I agree.  I was very interested to hear what people who haven't been
involved in any of the proposals were going to say on this issue.
Sadly, no opportunity for that were given.

Regards,
Simon

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:13:21 +0100

> I think that this was very poorly handled.

We certainly needed more time and what I tried to say clumsily at the
end is that there are certainly viewpoints that weren't expressed.
Basically, the topic needed a two hour slot.

We aren't done with the discussion, but let's wait till we see the
minutes to take stock of the open issues.

     Brian

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:45:52 -0800

> I think that this was very poorly handled.

I don't know that the session organizers handled it poorly.  I think
the problem was in having such a small slot.  I don't think we could
have cut down on the time spent on the drafts, but we could have used
another hour for more discussion.  Now we have to do what we can by mail.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:32:57 -0800

As acting WG chair, I agree with Sam's point.

I did not force the scheduled presentation of the issues to be shortened to 
fit the format given, which was an error on my part (I did not watch the 
time passing).

I believe the consensus reached in the first part (that the IETF needs to 
ask authors to grant the IETF the rights to permit others to produce 
derivative works) is a valid one, with a fair amount of input to the 
discussion, but I believe that the WG meeting cannot be used as a basis for 
concluding about what IETF's policy for granting such permission should be.

This issue has to be taken to the list.

                        Harald