Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 21 August 2012 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 EFB8A21F865D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10vziPvv8DRR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D34921F863F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so326031vbb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rzbadMpdwviECI1x4UMxD1a8A01Elc6ljo2Yp7MsTrk=; b=W1spcQIx/gFVlFxGIlGkoOxwjun2F54hQGrFUiY3oW9XE1kCsKnUbTo7H8l8YDuynf yOFqiiN3r1njIteeYlYowwNjBcK6kzrUicH4hZ/kHVYfiIG8/XbX5C/6n677vi21h89l zlxlQWXRR1PxmTUVpm7hWbcFvIM1UZdMBpUEteKnlUBmNwAWFzRaDvTRU9GaYVMKwBGO Xkh7WzDIrS8H1FLVP8yoDM9fttrJ5eQiffuVBj+zKDN+e1zIvo5MM71flzT+7xFuUicX 6Ig9tQ1Ts40EKJWwQkDHSBJ9N/e24vGAT5dp6G77ETXiDPIVocw10cc5sUDYILSb/BPe woSQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.17.48 with SMTP id l16mr2345330vdd.98.1345584477686; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.58.58.41 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ABDF3549-3C24-4AD5-985C-5E1560A80D83@gmail.com>
References: <133201cd7f85$325f59a0$971e0ce0$@olddog.co.uk> <ABDF3549-3C24-4AD5-985C-5E1560A80D83@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:27:57 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: _Vhg92qIRghyMkmGqbnAK84X3HM
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+nogfk2n8u10PyaBLOhytnsXtB7Cj+DNBFaO7r4BJ3Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility@tools.ietf.org, adrian@olddog.co.uk, 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: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:27:59 -0000

> I assume the intent is exclude people who are paid by the IETF to do
> work in the IETF.  For example, the IAD.

Correct.

> In these cases it difficult to tell if an individual is working for the
> IETF "long-term full-time work".

Indeed; it's difficult in many cases.

> If this text is to remain, it needs to be clearer as to what it means.

Which may say that it should not remain.

The specific exclusions that are in the real "rules" part are for the
IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor.  I would be just as happy to
remove those.  We can question whether we want to leave the RSE in,
specifically, but there's probably no real need to exclude the paid
RFC Editor function employees.  I'll note that the IAD is already
excluded by the "ex-officio" clause (he's an ex-officio IAOC member).
The current IAD has told me that he thinks it would be inappropriate
for the IAD to volunteer in any case, whether or not he's allowed to.

Margaret has commented that this stuff should come out.  Others, in
early conversations and discussions about all of this, thought it
should be in.  Further comments appreciated.

In particular: should bullet 15,2 (and its supporting text elsewhere)
be removed?

Barry