--On Friday, 07 January, 2005 12:00 -0500 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com> wrote:
*bleah* Generally its better to have rules *before* the
exceptional events occur.
"The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement
of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for
exceptional cases only."
Personally I like that better. Much better. I even agree
about the "*bleah*" part. I was just trying to reflect the
position on which Harald believes consensus had been attained,
i.e., I was trying to improve the language without changing what
seemed to be the intent -- both the original language and
Harald's proposed new sentence would have left things in a state
in which the IAOC would probably first encounter the problem,
then start making rules.
If the effect of that language change is to identify a problem
with the intent and to get it fixed, I think that is great.
john
At 11:32 AM 1/7/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 07 January, 2005 16:56 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
I think this line of thought has died down without any great
disagreement.... the consensus seems to be that the
following sentence:
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart
from
exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their services
as members of the IAOC.
belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the end
of 4.0 makes for the most reasonable placement (together
with all the stuff about membership selection).
(Personally, I'm not fond of the word "exceptional". It begs
the question of who grants exceptions, and what the criteria
for exceptions are. But the debaters seem to favour it.
I'd rather say "possible", and add "IAOC sets and publishes
rules for reimbursement of expenses, if that ever becomes
necessary". But I can live with the current text).
Harald,
At the risk of more on-list wordsmithing, and being
sympathetic to your preference above, would changing the
proposed sentence to read
The IAOC members shall not receive any
compensation for their services as members of
the IAOC. Should exceptional circumstances
justify reimbursement of expenses, the IAOC
will set and publish rules for those cases.
help sort this out?
While trying to make fine distinctions by the choice of words
in a sentence is a disease to which I'm probably a lot more
prone than average, this proto-BCP seems like the wrong place
to do it. The form proposed earlier and repeated in your
message not only causes the potential for a debate about
"exceptional" but also for a debate about what it really
means to include expenses as a "service" that is being
performed. On the theory that clarity is a good thing if it
can be done easily, let's tie the prohibited "compensation"
to services only and then state that expense reimbursement is
an exceptional case and that the IAOC gets to figure out what
is exceptional and what the rules are.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf