Re: memorial RFC

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

The IESG is chartered with technical oversight, not award leadership, AFAICT.

E.g., the ANRP is awarded by a separate committee. The Postel Award is decided by a committee at the ISOC level.

I am not aware of any award the IESG is chartered to bestow, so this seems outside their purview, IMO.

Joe

—
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Dec 12, 2025, at 9:44 AM, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The way we normally solve this type of problem is to delegate it to the IESG to decide on our behalf.
> 
> I think memorials need to be strictly reserved for those that have made an outstanding contribution to the work of the IETF.
> 
> Stewart
> 
>> On 3 Dec 2025, at 17:49, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> If we go down this route, we are going to end up with the Wikipedia problem of determining significance. And then we will have the bike shedding over whether Igor Thrub made sufficiently important contributions to the WGAF protocol to deserve recognition.
>> 
>> I suggest that we reach out through our academic friends to see if there is a group of historians who are interested in picking up the subject while most of the principals are still alive. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 12:13 PM Theodore Tso <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> Stepping back a bit, we haven't formally stated what the requirements
>>> should be for the "In Memoriam" RFC/web page/whatever.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps as a result, when we've been discussing the idea, people also
>>> seem to have their own ideas of what might be contained in the "In
>>> Memoriam" document.  Is it just a list of names?  Names and photos,
>>> ala what is done with Oscar / Tony award shows?  List of RFC's,
>>> working groups, done by the person being remembered?  Paragraph-long
>>> rememberances of people who had fond memories of the deceased?
>>> Perhaps not-so-fond remembarances of people who are fond of launching
>>> IESG / IAB appeals?  Links to all of the appeals that someone has
>>> launched?  :-)   etc.
>>> 
>>> This is making discussions of whether this should be done at all to go
>>> round and around a bit, in my opinion.
>>> 
>>> If all we want to do is to state that someone is no longer around to
>>> answer questions, then something in the data tracker indicating that
>>> they have no valid e-mail addresses is sufficient.  If the requirement
>>> is more than that, then what needs to get done starts to get more
>>> complex, and I suspect, more controversial.
>>> 
>>>                                                         - Ted
>>>