RE: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Michael Thomas
>
>           Mike, could be a dog too

I'm not sure what you people have against canines - if a dog can email in cohesive comments on a draft or working group topic, I say we should listen!  ;)

The issue here is not one of identity for email/discussion, but rather one of identity for consensus declaration.  In other words, I don't see anything wrong with letting anonymous/random beings communicate ideas to the IETF through email or jabber or whatever.  What gets tricky is a WG chair basing consensus or interest on the email list traffic.  The problem is how consensus is determined, not how we identify contributors.

In the IEEE 802 groups, they have (or used to when I went) a policy of anyone can comment, but you have to physically go to a certain number of meetings per year, and continue doing so, to be counted as an actual voting member. (but anyone from anywhere could become such a member if they participated)  That worked pretty well, because often times they still went with consensus but only pulled out the "voting members only" policy when something could not be so resolved.  I realize that physically going to IETF meetings is not a model we want, but for people who don't go, we could require vetting of identity to get voting status.

-hadriel
p.s. And I for one welcome our new dog overlords.  I'd like to remind them that as a former cat-owner, I can be helpful in rounding up cats to toil in their dog pounds.

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf