--On Sunday, October 21, 2012 17:43 +0100 Adrian Farrel
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
In practice, that will mean, anyone who someone else thinks
was a part of the community.
It would not be seemly to squabble about whether someone had
really played a significant part in the IETF, and would be
better to include anyone on request. I think the reality is
that no=one would make the request unless they felt that the
IETF had been a significant part of the deceased's life.
By itself, that would risk losing anyone who met one of Dave's
criteria but for "someone" didn't think to tell us. So, while
I tend to agree with you, partially because there have been
people with significant impact on the IETF who don't meet any of
Dave's criteria, I think it maybe ought to be Dave's list plus
anyone for whom there is a request, rather than either-or. I
note in particular that there are a number of people whom I
think had a significant impact on the IETF and on how we shaped
various protocols but who never attended a meeting, including,
e.g., a few late ITU-T Directors and ITU SGs and a few folks the
community often dismisses as loonies.
At the same time, I agree with Benson that such a list could
approach silliness and be impossible to stop.
john