Subject: New "Note Well" summary slide from the IESG

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 17:38:47 +0100

The IESG would like the chairs to try out a new "Note Well" summary
slide at IETF 87 in Berlin.  This is a more concise version that would
replace the one we've been projecting at the start of each meeting
session.  It contains three main bullet points and a reminder to look
at the formal documentation for the full information.  The idea is
that this version should be short enough that participants could
realistically read the three bullet points, and that, in fact, the
chair could read the three bullet points aloud without unduly
disrupting the start of the session.

The goal is to give participants something that has a chance of being
read and understood, rather than something too dense and busy to be
useful.

Attached are PDF, PPT, and HTML versions of the new slide.

Barry Leiba, for the IESG

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 11:07:11 -0800

On 5/8/13 8:38 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> slide at IETF 87 in Berlin. 

I like it - much clearer.

Melinda

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 18:23:36 -0400

+10

	Olafur

---

From: Jon Hudson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 18:53:44 -0700

Sooooo agree! Much much more clear.

---

From: "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 05:51:19 +0000

Ditto

Klaas

Sent from my iPad

---

From: Tom Talpey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 16:29:18 +0000

Love the direct and clear bullets. But I think the first sentence should make a declarative statement of content, instead of saying it's a "summary" (of what?), and that it "doesn't have all the nuances" (for which non-English speakers may find many definitions).

I suggest that it open with "Every contribution you make in this meeting is subject to the IETF's IPR Policy, set forth in BCP 79, please read it carefully." Then, those great bullets send it all home.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 1:51 AM
To: Jon Hudson
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: New "Note Well" summary slide from the IESG

Ditto

Klaas

Sent from my iPad

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 00:30:31 +0200

>> Sooooo agree! Much much more clear. 

+1

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 21:40:42 -0400

>>> Sooooo agree! Much much more clear. 

-16 (the total +'s and an extra).

I preferred the old one (with much more detail) -- it may not have had everything, and I know not everyone read it, but to me it always seems that I had at least *shown* people most of what is expected, and if they didn't read it it's their fault. Kinda like the guy who talks really quickly at the end of auto ads in the USA -- you probably cannot actually understand all the disclaimers, but seems like that would have an easier time defending it than if they just say "We have a heap-o-disclaimers, they are at : www.example.com/54tre453ter3/discl_343_mers.html.

Luckily I don't *need* to prefer this one -- IANAL (nor do I play one on TV), I don't really care, and I'm on the far side of rough consensus here :-P

W

-- 
Eagles soar but a weasel will never get sucked into a jet engine

---

From: "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 09:54:13 +0000

Warren,

> Luckily I don't *need* to prefer this one -- IANAL (nor do I play one on TV), I don't really care, and I'm on the far side of rough consensus here :-P

I understand your argument. I guess it is somewhat reflecting a different culture of liability. I prefer a clear, short  EULA that people actually read over a 50 page one that nobody reads, but depending on jurisdiction the latter may be better from a litigation point of view. I feel that the middle ground that the authors have reached, i.e. concise enough to actually read but with a pointer to the full text, makes sense, but again, I understand your PoV.

Klaas

---

From: Julien Meuric <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 16:02:11 +0200

Hi.

I tend to think the legal disclaimer is already the page used during 
registration process, while the one shared during meetings is targeted 
at minds and behaviors (many being non-native English speakers). I'll be 
happy to use the new one.

Julien

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:09:22 -0400

> registration process, while the one shared during meetings is targeted at
> minds and behaviors (many being non-native English speakers).

Yes, exactly.  That is exactly the intent.

Barry

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 20:32:44 -0400

I'm going to miss the 4-point font…

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:45:04 -0700

Given the 3.5 seconds we, as chairs, flash it up to the WG I am perfectly happy to have a more visually consumable slide that covers the intent of the note well. 

Call that a +1 if you like. 

Cheers,
Terry

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 19:58:34 -0500

> Given the 3.5 seconds we, as chairs, flash it up to the WG I am perfectly happy to have a more visually consumable slide that covers the intent of the note well.

We had sorta hoped, given it was now in short plain English, that it 
would encourage chairs to actually read the thing aloud in the room.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:09:35 +1000

I've attached them to our Wiki page:
  http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/WikiStart

Which is different than our "Info Page":
  http://www.ietf.org/wg/chair-info.html

... which is NOT the "Chair's Page":
  http://www.ietf.org/wg/chairs-page.html

Who says the IETF is confusing?

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:42:54 -0700

And I shall do. Previously it was not much more than a skim. A
paraphrasing if you will, representing a gesture of recognition to the
ethos of the IETF note well.

Since there are no big words nor is it laden with legalese I'm happy to
speak it.

Cheers
T.

On 14/05/13 10:58 AM, "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Given the 3.5 seconds we, as chairs, flash it up to the WG I am
>>perfectly happy to have a more visually consumable slide that covers the
>>intent of the note well.
>>    
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:46:00 -0700

> would encourage chairs to actually read the thing aloud in the room.

Perhaps the slide should be cast as an oath, and begin with:

    Repeat after me:

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 01:48:35 +0000

> Perhaps the slide should be cast as an oath, and begin with:

Ideally we should do it in Latin...

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 05:50:07 +0000

On May 14, 2013, at 4:48 AM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Ideally we should do it in Latin…
> 

Have it carved on stone tablets and read it aloud while wearing a fake (if necessary) beard.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 12:28:58 +0000

> Have it carved on stone tablets and read it aloud while wearing a fake (if necessary) beard.

I'm sure we can find someone with a beard to read it!

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 14:12:18 +0000

On May 14, 2013, at 8:53 AM, "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> and after that all hum… ohmmmm

Hm, then we would have to do the oath in Sanskrit, no?

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 10:33:48 -0400

> I'm sure we can find someone with a beard to read it!

But doesn't that also require standing at the foot of a mountain?

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       [email-masked]             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant

---

From: "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 12:53:57 +0000