Theodore Tso <tytso at MIT dot EDU> wrote: > A valid technical concern is easy to deal with. If they provide an> idea, I suspect a cautious working group chair might insist on knowing> their real name and company affiliation, since there have been past> examples where companies have tried to inject patented technologies> into a standards specification. I suppose a few personal notes might be in order regarding "company affiliation," since I've served as editor for both RFC 4645 and draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis, both products of the LTRU Working Group that started this thread, and both under the title "Consultant" instead of a company or other organizational affiliation. There are a couple of reasons. One is that my company, which had apparently been embarrassed by employees posting personal opinions on an industry message board in a way which made them sound like official company positions, instituted a set of "Internet and Electronic Communications Guidelines" some years ago which prohibits employees from "stating their [company] affiliation over the Internet" unless required as part of their job description. This went way too far in my opinion -- stating that you work for XYZ Company is quite different from stating that you represent the official position of XYZ Company -- but it is the approved policy, it allows for termination in the event of violation, and we all signed it. The other reason is that three years ago, there was an attempt by -- surprise! -- JFC Morfin to contact the professional employer of one of the LTRU participants and single him out for corporate disciplinary action, in retaliation for his support of a PR-action against Morfin. Together with the "Internet and Electronic Communications Guidelines," this hostile and unprofessional action further convinced me that it was not in my best interests to disclose my employer in documents published on the Internet, and especially not in an RFC where the text: D. Ewell, Ed.XYZ Company might present the impression, rightly or wrongly, of company sponsorship or representation. Next week I start work for a new employer, and I hope they will have a more enlightened attitude toward employees "stating their [company] affiliation over the Internet" and will understand that stating one's affiliation in an IETF document is a matter of author identification, not corporate sponsorship. In passing, I will restate that my involvement with the LTRU has always been individual in nature, and has never been sponsored or sanctioned by any commercial interest nor driven by any corporate goal, although I believe the work may be of value to any entity (corporate or otherwise) concerned with the identification of linguistic content. --Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14http://www.ewellic.orghttp://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.htmlhttp://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________IETF mailing listIETF@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf