Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: <bmanning(_at_)vacation(_dot_)karoshi(_dot_)com>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Cc: <bmanning(_at_)vacation(_dot_)karoshi(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than
some
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:36:38AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
Bill - I think the IETF has tried to for years claim it has no members
and
that simply isn't true - and I can arrange to have a Judge tell you and
the
IETF that if you like.
great... i'd appreciate that.
Jorge - Are you ready to meet me in the FDC?
i stand by my claim that i am
not a member of the IETF.
No actually you are a formal member as maintained here - You see only WG
members contratually bound under NOTEWELL are allowed to comment on
initiatives since there is NO FORMAL PROCESS for the IETF to take external
commentary from non-members in place.
The day-to-day membership fee paid is the transfer of the Ownership of the
IP developed under as per Notewell or the other IP Conveyance Processes.
Sorry - but you are paying dues - just not in cash...
I have attended IETF meetings, participated
in discussion and debate, proposed work, developed code ... all of
which were done in consultation with like-minded individuals.
You mean with other formal and "dues-paying members" of the IETF.
i've -never- signed up as a member,
Sure you did - the conveyance of the IP through the signing up on the
Mailing List did that. Conveying the IP to the IETF is paying the membership
fee. Further nothing makes you more a member than working here in this WG on
the IETF's Processes.
paid membership dues
So those meetings you attended were free? no fee's therein? Cool - then
since you or your sponsor's never paid for you to attend these meetings, nor
neither of you paid for the infrasturtcure so that you could participate in
the ongoing lists' genesis ... then I guess your right - (ahahahahaha -
sorry what a crock).
, nor am
i aware of a process for becoming a member.
Except that you are formally constrained by a set of terms and conditions
and contracts for this participation, and you are allowed a voice so yes -
you are a member of the IETF whether you like it or not.
The fact is that this WG has a membership and is constructing IETF
process
er, does the WG have membership or is it an email list that has
members?
Arent they one in the same. NoTEWELL and the contractual terms for
participating creat the membership boundries therein.
are you asserting that an email address on a list
constitutes membership?
Yes. And if you doubt that, try finding out what putting your email address
on that list contractually constrained you to. You agreed to NOTEWELL and
all of the changing terms that are being created herein didnt you?
Also anyone formally participating under any set of Contractual Agreements
with the IETF becomes a member based on that alone. A member of those
mailing lists and a member of the IETF's Standards Workflow Processes.
Sorry...
More inline below.
----- Original Message -----
From: <bmanning(_at_)vacation(_dot_)karoshi(_dot_)com>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
<bmanning(_at_)vacation(_dot_)karoshi(_dot_)com>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather
than
some
todd,
you never did answer my question. when do you think the IETF
aquired the attribute of "members"?
It has members when it needs to claim it "voted on something to approve
its
deployment" but that the term MEMBERS is not generally accepted by those
who
want the system to stay as it is today.
the rabble don't vote. there is the occasional "hum" (thanks Marshall)
to have the WG chairs guage consesus. the IESG and IAB vote... so the
term members may apply there. but as to the occasional passerby whom
may make a random comment or two, i posit that the case is not so clear.
open elections kind of presupose a defined electorate.
what would be the criteria for some entity to cast a vote in
such an "election"?
Being an active member of a WG - i.e. someone who's actions within the
IETF
were constrained by what this WG does..
and how, pray tell would there be an emperical, unbiased definition of
"active member" ...
thanks for your comments.
--bill
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf