Re: NomCom 2012-2013: Third Call for Volunteers

Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org> Thu, 02 August 2012 05:37 UTC

Return-Path: <weiler@watson.org>
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 BB66011E809A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.170, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EXjowxOQVpkZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE77311E80D9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost.watson.org [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q725bhSm099108; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:37:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
Received: from localhost (weiler@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q725bhqI099102; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:37:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: weiler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 01:37:43 -0400
From: Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org>
To: Yoshihiro Ohba <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>
Subject: Re: NomCom 2012-2013: Third Call for Volunteers
In-Reply-To: <501A0BDB.2040501@toshiba.co.jp>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208020132140.96564@fledge.watson.org>
References: <20120731044425.12307.52108.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208011848500.88006@fledge.watson.org> <3B46F876-010A-4C9D-9CC4-704211939459@frobbit.se> <501A0BDB.2040501@toshiba.co.jp>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (fledge.watson.org [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 02 Aug 2012 01:37:44 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 05:37:46 -0000

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:

> What is the exact definition of "affiliation" in IETF?

Quoting from RFC3777:

"Rather than defining precise rules for how to define "affiliation", 
the IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the 
participants to make the process work."

As a community, we recognize that this could easily be gamed, and we 
expect each other to behave reasonably.

> If a consultant who runs his/her own consulting company X is paid by 
> his/her customer company Y for his/her IETF activities including 
> NOMCOM activity, then what is his/her affiliation?

As a first pass answer, it's whatever the consultant would normally 
show on a meeting registration badge.  Typically, I'd expect X.  But 
the degree of funding is as extreme as you describe, it might still be 
appropriate to step aside if two persons from Y are also chosen (or 
ask one of them to step aside).

-- Sam