Re: StandICT.eu funding on offer

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 08 May 2021 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216DE3A0060 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 May 2021 10:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DIET_1=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A_IuUuWfVNkq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 May 2021 10:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 618C13A005C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 May 2021 10:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1lfQc8-000OoW-GB; Sat, 08 May 2021 13:19:40 -0400
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 13:19:34 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: amelia.ietf@andersdotter.cc
cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: StandICT.eu funding on offer
Message-ID: <0D7484EDEBA1FCFD76CB9F64@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <fc52e4d3-fdb9-c0ab-2c5b-3011e66609ce@andersdotter.cc>
References: <412FE537-426A-4517-946A-B6F6A532F1B1@ietf.org> <907375A7-DCCE-4972-ACA9-D2C611BFCAB6@ietf.org> <CAA=duU1oyB6Ut17ECZweC1_NFx=Yj+okobxPPjW=zT8PobuqdQ@mail.gmail.com> <B7D400A7-C9BF-44C8-A864-C18A3818C235@episteme.net> <100CE9CF386142B15AD8098A@PSB> <fc52e4d3-fdb9-c0ab-2c5b-3011e66609ce@andersdotter.cc>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ECR9MOUa6RuNAVKJpCeAhkbCYYM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 17:19:47 -0000


--On Saturday, May 8, 2021 13:16 +0200 Amelia Andersdotter
<amelia.ietf@andersdotter.cc> wrote:

> I disagree with the two interventions above based on RFC3005:
> "The IETF discussion list, ietf@ietf.org, /.../ is the most
> general IETF mailing list, [where] considerable latitude is
> allowed."
> 
> A short, one-sentence message from the IETF executive director
> outlining an opportunity to fund participation in IETF
> meetings must reasonably fit within "considerable latitude".
>...

> Amelia Andersdotter
> IETF SHMOO WG Co-Chair

But that, IMO, takes us into a much more difficult place.  While
Jay is entitled to his personal opinions --and I have found they
are usually useful to listen to-- the moment the IETF Executive
Director starts making decisions about what is, or is not,
appropriate on ietf@ietf.org, we are, again IMO, halfway down
the slippery slops toward the LLC regulating and interfering in
the standards process.

YMMD and obviously does, but I wish you would avoid explicitly
identifying yourself as a WG Chair when you express them,
something that normally implies giving your position extra
weight.

best, 
  john