So I also prefer Mike's wording to mine.
(Another thing - I have recommended to the transition team that they try to keep notes on this sort of thing and write them into a "prototype IASA rulebook"..... if I were looking at this process from the outside and cared, I'd have greater belief that the rule would actually get written if I saw draft text....)
--On 7. januar 2005 12:39 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On Friday, 07 January, 2005 12:00 -0500 Michael StJohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
