The disclosure obligation is personal, by design. Whether you consider this
good or bad depends on your viewpoint…
Stephan
From: ietf
<ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>> on
behalf of
"lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk<mailto:lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>"
<lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk<mailto:lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>>
Reply-To:
"lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk<mailto:lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>"
<lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk<mailto:lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>>
Date: Monday, March 21, 2016 at 18:56
To: Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>,
"ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
Subject: Re: Proposed New Note Well
What about participating in the IETF by proxy,
which is what corporations do?
Lloyd Wood
lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk<mailto:lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________
From: Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 March 2016, 12:14
Subject: Re: Proposed New Note Well
Hi,
I could live with this, although I am still happy enough with the old version.
By participating in the IETF,
I think this should say
By participating in the IETF in person, remotely, or on-line,
BCP 25 (Working Group processes)
BCP 25 (Anti-Harassment Procedures)
Why two separate lines, when BCP 9 (6 different RFCs) only gets one line?
Regards
Brian