On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:35:28AM -0400, Dave Crocker wrote:
some/many/most, but not for all. As an example, how will we feel
about having the list contain the names of sockpuppets that have
been active in the IETF?
This question nicely identifies why the proposal makes me so
uncomfortable, and why I don't think I can support it, however much I
think there are contributors worth remembering.
The question assumes that there is an easy way to identify the "we" of
"how will we feel", not to mention an easy way to tell who is a
sockpuppet. Each of us doubtless has perfectly useful and effective
ways of making such identifications, but I doubt they'll be the same
for everyone.
Because of that, at the beginning it would probably be pretty easy to
decide who'd be on the list. In a few years, however, there'll be a
case where there are hard feelings about inclusion or non-inclusion of
someone. (Anyone who thinks we are going to make "purely objective"
criteria and then stick to them is just dreaming. We can't even do
that when bits on the wire are involved.) That will inevitably result
in a small bit of process, or an appeal route, or something, and we'll
be off on yet another attempt to write perfectly balanced procedures
to ensure The Right Result comes out. Those will be more cycles that
are spent on process rather than getting work done.
Obviously, if someone wants to set up the network memorial pages
(unaffiliated with the IETF), I can't see anything wrong with it. I
just don't think it's an IETF activity.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com