--On Sunday, October 21, 2012 17:43 +0100 Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.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
