Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
My intention was to say that the IAOC sets the rules as soon as it gets around to it, and certainly before any expense is covered - even if the rule is as simple as no payment, ever, it should be set. 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
RE: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike. So that is: t The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. /t at the end of section 4, so just before section 4.1 Bert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 08:55 To: John C Klensin; Michael StJohns; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members My intention was to say that the IAOC sets the rules as soon as it gets around to it, and certainly before any expense is covered - even if the rule is as simple as no payment, ever, it should be set. So I also prefer Mike's wording to mine. Bert ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
On 1/10/2005 06:12, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote: OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike. So that is: t The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. /t at the end of section 4, so just before section 4.1 Bert If this is still open to nits ... I don't think you want generally. It doesn't go with exceptional. Isn't reimbursement *always* for exceptional cases only? If it's exceptionally for common cases, would those not also be exceptional? :-) I suggest eliminating generally. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
Hmm... No, actually I think this is right. This is guidance to the IAOC for publishing the rules not the rules themselves. In general, the rules should only cover exceptional expenses (e.g. spent $1000 paying the teleconference bill for xxx), but the IAOC can also establish rules for non-exceptional expenses (e.g. mileage for meetings) because its the only way they can get people to come to do something for example. At 09:12 AM 1/10/2005, Scott W Brim wrote: On 1/10/2005 06:12, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote: OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike. So that is: t The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. /t at the end of section 4, so just before section 4.1 Bert If this is still open to nits ... I don't think you want generally. It doesn't go with exceptional. Isn't reimbursement *always* for exceptional cases only? If it's exceptionally for common cases, would those not also be exceptional? :-) I suggest eliminating generally. Scott ___ 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
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
On 1/10/2005 14:41, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote: Hmm... No, actually I think this is right. This is guidance to the IAOC for publishing the rules not the rules themselves. In general, the rules should only cover exceptional expenses (e.g. spent $1000 paying the teleconference bill for xxx), but the IAOC can also establish rules for non-exceptional expenses (e.g. mileage for meetings) because its the only way they can get people to come to do something for example. OK At 09:12 AM 1/10/2005, Scott W Brim wrote: On 1/10/2005 06:12, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote: OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike. So that is: t The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. /t at the end of section 4, so just before section 4.1 Bert If this is still open to nits ... I don't think you want generally. It doesn't go with exceptional. Isn't reimbursement *always* for exceptional cases only? If it's exceptionally for common cases, would those not also be exceptional? :-) I suggest eliminating generally. Scott ___ 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
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
On 1/7/2005 10:56, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly 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). I find possible to be more prone to confusion than exceptional, but I like the idea of adding your extra sentence even with exceptional. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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). I prefer your wording as well. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
--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
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
Sam == Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Harald I think this line of thought has died down without any Harald great disagreement the consensus seems to be that the Harald following sentence: Harald The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart Harald from exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their Harald services as members of the IAOC. Harald belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the Harald end of 4.0 makes for the most reasonable placement Sam I don't think it belongs; I think ekr made a compelling Sam argument that this is a matter of policy not BCP. OK, too many things conflated. I agree saying that IAOC members should not get paid for time is appropriate BCP material. I missed all the wordsmithing that lead to the current text, but it looks like there were a fair number of messages. I won't pretend to be able to do better and since we need to say something we should say this. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 18:16, ext Scott W Brim wrote: On 1/7/2005 10:56, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly 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). I find possible to be more prone to confusion than exceptional, but I like the idea of adding your extra sentence even with exceptional. WFM ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Jonne Soininen Nokia Tel: +358 40 527 46 34 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
*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. 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
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
--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
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
Michael, Your proposed text is OK for me. --Jari Michael StJohns 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. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
