Much of what makes the IETF work is how it is very different from other
standards bodies (such as IEEE, ANSI, ISO, NIST, ITU, etc etc).
One key difference is that "groups" do not join the IETF.
Cisco, IBM, MCI, or Linden Lab are not a "members" of the IETF. No agency
of the US government, or of
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:16:41AM -0700, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Only individual people can be "members" of the IETF.
I thought we didn't have members? I've always liked to refer to
people doing work here as "participants" for exactly that reason.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro,
On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I thought we didn't have members? I've always liked to refer to
people doing work here as "participants" for exactly that reason.
Right.
Melinda
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf
On 2010-04-06 13:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I thought we didn't have members? I've always liked to refer to
people doing work here as "participants" for exactly that reason.
There are exactly 2003 members of the IETF! ;)
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMembers=&gid=83669
Simon
--
NAT64/DN
On 6 Apr 2010, at 17:16, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Only individual people can be "members" of the IETF. And "membership" is
> mostly defined as "who shows up on the mailing list" and "who shows up at the
> meetings".
>
> There have been many cases in the history of the IETF where well known
> membe
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Much of what makes the IETF work is how it is very different from other
> standards bodies (such as IEEE, ANSI, ISO, NIST, ITU, etc etc).
>
> One key difference is that "groups" do not join the IETF.
>
That's part of it but IEEE, for example,
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 14:23, Sabahattin Gucukoglu
wrote:
> I don't see any meaningful relationship between
> employment status and IETF participation. That's all.
For some of us there is. I tend to be more active in IETF things
(this list, WGs, etc.) when I'm LOOKING for work!
-Dave
--
Dav
On 6 apr 2010, at 18:16, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Cisco, IBM, MCI, or Linden Lab are not a "members" of the IETF. No agency of
> the US government, or of any other government, is a "member" of the IETF. No
> university, non-profit, PIRG, PAC, or other "concerned citizens group", is a
> "member" o
On Apr 6, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 6 apr 2010, at 18:16, Mark Atwood wrote:
Cisco, IBM, MCI, or Linden Lab are not a "members" of the IETF. No
agency of the US government, or of any other government, is a
"member" of the IETF. No university, non-profit, PIRG, PAC,
Perhaps that would stop all of these "LOOP MAIL DETECTED" messages I keep
getting back from kisa.or.kr every time I post to this (particular) email list.
Anyone else getting those?
-hadriel
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Dean Willis wrote:
> Flip side: I could see the IETF requiring all participants use ietf.org email
> addresses hosted on ietf.org servers with ietf.org-issued
> authentication/signature certificates, and quite possibly (with some
> exceptions) restricted delivery to/from non
> Considering that, it wouldn't be the worst idea to have everyone post mailing
> list messages from an employee email address.
Given the stiff competition for "worst idea", I'd agree, but it's a truly
terrible idea nonetheless. The appallingly low quality of the email systems
used by many corpora
On 2010-04-07 05:57, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> I thought we didn't have members? I've always liked to refer to
>> people doing work here as "participants" for exactly that reason.
>
> Right.
Or "contributors" when they contribute and therefo
If this is true it make me wonder why does the IETF care about the
affiliation of WG chairs and ADs
Roni Even
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Atwood
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:17 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Public musing on the nature of
It is a useful fiction, but a fiction nonetheless.
If you work for a public company there is an enormous amount of
process involved when someone speaks for it. Even more so in the case
of government employees. You really do not want to have to go through
that process in order to suggest rewording
010 7:17 PM
> *To:* ietf@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Public musing on the nature of IETF membership and employment
> status
>
>
>
> Much of what makes the IETF work is how it is very different from other
> standards bodies (such as IEEE, ANSI, ISO, NIST, ITU, etc etc).
>
>
&
some people felt this created the impression of
> dominance.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
>
>
>> *From:* ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf
>> Of *Mark Atwood
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:17 PM
>> *To:* ietf@ietf.org
>&
Atwood
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Public musing on the nature of IETF membership and employment status
>
>
> Much of what makes the IETF work is how it is very different from other
> standards bodies (such as IEEE, ANSI, ISO, NIST, I
Hi Fred,
I¹m not sure whether this (admittedly selective) quote would be fair to your
hypothetical collaborators:
On 4.8.2010 16:02 , "Fred Baker" wrote:
> [...] I would be truly disappointed if someone I was collaborating with on a
> draft or was working on a working group with me fundamentally
On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Hi Fred,
Would you really expect me not to throw my weight (assuming there
were one) behind the proposal I fought teeth and claws before—and
damage my relationship with my new employer during the first days on
the job?
Yep. If you did,
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>
> Hi Fred,
>>
>
> Would you really expect me not to throw my weight (assuming there were
>> one) behind the proposal I fought teeth and claws before—and damage my
>> relationship with my n
etf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Atwood
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:40 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Public musing on the nature of IETF membership and employment
status
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Dean Willis
mailto:dean.wil...@softarmor.com>> wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, a
On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:21 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
We can all claim our environment doesn’t change our views, but
that’s hard to reconcile with human behavior research.
Regardless, I think even you’d agree that one’s views on technical
issues can easily change if, for example, one were to
why I would like the IETF Nomcom to continue considering
> employers when selecting Area Directors and such – because their employer
> affects the environment they view technology from.
>
> -hadriel
>
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ma
On 4/8/2010 10:22 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>
>> Hi Fred,
>
>> Would you really expect me not to throw my weight (assuming there were
>> one) behind the proposal I fought teeth and claws before—and damage my
>> relationship with my new employer
gt; dominance.
> Thanks,
> Donald
>
>>
>> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Mark Atwood
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:17 PM
>> To: ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Public musing on the nature of IETF membership and e
26 matches
Mail list logo
