Re: funding on offer

Pete Resnick <> Sat, 08 May 2021 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB253A1FF5 for <>; Sat, 8 May 2021 10:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OtnAZn2QgOlr for <>; Sat, 8 May 2021 10:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE7FB3A1FF6 for <>; Sat, 8 May 2021 10:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82147E507C3F; Sat, 8 May 2021 12:00:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0WW52M2mqv7k; Sat, 8 May 2021 12:00:24 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6322FE507C08; Sat, 8 May 2021 12:00:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Pete Resnick <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>, S Moonesamy <>
Cc: IETF <>
Subject: Re: funding on offer
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 12:00:22 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5800)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 17:00:38 -0000

First let me say that I don't care what guidelines we use for posting to 
the list; I think Jay's original message was probably reasonable to 
post. I was simply responding to Andy's comment that his message 
"certainly fits" the description of the list; it's not "certain", and 
certainly not to the unnamed person who commented to Jay that it didn't. 
All I meant was that we should have a real discussion about whether or 
not it fit and write down our conclusion somewhere so that we don't need 
to have this discussion again.

That said:

On 7 May 2021, at 18:48, S Moonesamy wrote:

> The burden is on the person complaining about a message to explain why 
> it is not okay.

On 8 May 2021, at 6:38, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> (And, as usual, the detection of this as a charter violation created 
> an order of magnitude more noise than the pointer itself.)

Using words like "burden" and "charter violation" isn't helpful and 
makes this sound like some sort of legal exercise. There are no burdens 
of proof here; we're trying to be polite to one another and have some 
guidelines to help people do that.

> On 2021-05-07, at 17:26, Pete Resnick <> wrote:
>> But it doesn't fit the IETF list charter, RFC 3005:
>> Inappropriate postings include:
>> - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
>>   sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.
> The English I learned doesn’t make an announcement of the form 
> “here are people offering money so you can continue your IETF 
> work” an "Announcement of conferences, events, or activities”.

The main page that Jay pointed to looks to me, at least at first glance, 
to be an announcement of an activity not sponsored or endorsed by ISOC 
or the IETF. In this case, it sounds like one that it would be good for 
IETF folks to know about, and we might agree ones like this in the 
future should not be looked sideways at. Are we OK with all Internet 
technology grant announcements on this list? What about job 

Again, I'm only suggesting it's a good idea to come to some agreement 
about what's reasonable and what's not.

> Maybe me announcing that I wrote another version of some piece of 
> software that implements IETF protocols and plan to continue doing 
> that, does, much more so, but nobody would complain about that.

If it had instructions about how to buy the latest version, perhaps with 
an "IETF Member Discount", and pointers to your other wonderful products 
available on your website, I bet you would get complaints. :-)

> “Considerable latitude”, as Amelia said…

I'm all for it. So let's just decide what's reasonable and what's not.


Pete Resnick
All connections to the world are tenuous at best