Re: Oauth blog post

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 02 August 2012 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 0D56711E8148 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 JhhHjZhRQngk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF20C11E8129 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sm-THINK.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q72HKOKH026263; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1343928037; bh=CnN1OhqAvjKSm/rkqQALs4W2o0AVVoRzJhVHa/6hFoI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=PzgZesIc4g8xXD5+aJFr35Z4XPFI3+Alo2LiRTmNQ8flZ21sDljvyFgR+LFp5NZWu GkgFJrppoEcPdDQGHsU2vjnj9PhGAgD86erS2DIx3ogOCS9QAUTRj6d8M/PZQpv6cC o/ogn0vxfOJ/FswsUJ7whdQEh2cPshFUI601FWBU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1343928037; i=@resistor.net; bh=CnN1OhqAvjKSm/rkqQALs4W2o0AVVoRzJhVHa/6hFoI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=34x7lfTPZpgbwnAbENBr87weOp4AZFBnBzAfQkrBlWifqKWX5LyFJF7LAUra1WdG7 KJzbGG9Ib+N0nSc/1qwSuhjl2MC9fSdli9IZgR6htWWtzZbqTDZTzJ5n/B5RD11MpZ zIIUZI+u8MAJTlLhjssH4kE6bgehF0z7BVqWS1N8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120802092955.09500ea0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:15:35 -0700
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Oauth blog post
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYNRW6FSC4kMQkn81+4HgKdv591D43Z31rLAg3ArRsSZg@mail.g mail.com>
References: <501531F7.5040404@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120729073422.06d8fe10@resistor.net> <39B73AD9-4E8F-4E94-A538-69BE5D8C0E18@gmx.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120730101231.047f2550@resistor.net> <CAL0qLwYNRW6FSC4kMQkn81+4HgKdv591D43Z31rLAg3ArRsSZg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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 17:20:47 -0000

Hi Murray,
At 09:13 AM 8/2/2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>I think it's impossible to determine with certainty whether someone 
>standing at the mic and asserting a position is doing so based on 
>what an employer is insisting on doing, or that person's opinion.

Yes.

>We purport to participate as individuals.  It's entirely possible 
>that a person's opinion happens to concur with her employer's 
>opinion rather than being told what to say.  Does that mean the 
>corporation is the participant and not the person?

As the participation is as an individual the participant is the 
person.  In practice the person usually acts as a proxy for their 
employee.  A hum can be taken for some decisions so that the 
individual can express his or her opinion without any external pressure.

>So when I hear these sorts of allegations of corporate domination of 
>the standards process, I have to wonder how true they are.  I have a 
>pretty big corporate name on my badge this time, but I'm not here 
>pushing any specific agenda I was given.

I have not seen your badge.  I can find out what pretty corporate 
name is on it by looking  up the information on the relevant web page. :-)

These comments about corporate domination generally comes down to 
perception.  The problem in my humble opinion is mistrust.  It can be 
caused by miscommunication.

Regards,
-sm