Barry, On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> I assume the intent is exclude people who are paid by the IETF to do >> work in the IETF. For example, the IAD. > > Correct. > Thanks. >> In these cases it difficult to tell if an individual is working for the >> IETF "long-term full-time work". > > Indeed; it's difficult in many cases. > >> If this text is to remain, it needs to be clearer as to what it means. > > Which may say that it should not remain. > > The specific exclusions that are in the real "rules" part are for the > IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor. I would be just as happy to > remove those. We can question whether we want to leave the RSE in, > specifically, but there's probably no real need to exclude the paid > RFC Editor function employees. I'll note that the IAD is already > excluded by the "ex-officio" clause (he's an ex-officio IAOC member). Right, but he is one of our two paid employees (via ISOC). > The current IAD has told me that he thinks it would be inappropriate > for the IAD to volunteer in any case, whether or not he's allowed to. I agree. > > Margaret has commented that this stuff should come out. Others, in > early conversations and discussions about all of this, thought it > should be in. Further comments appreciated. I would be OK if it called out the IAD and the RSE as being ineligible. It's simpler than trying to generalize it. > > In particular: should bullet 15,2 (and its supporting text elsewhere) > be removed? 15,2 should probably say "People employed in the IETF Secretariat….". I would leave it in. My thinking is that the IESG, IAB, and IAOC have oversight roles over the Secretariat and RFC Editor. Having people employed by these organizations be directly involved in the selection of the IESG, IAB, and IAOC would be odd. Bob > > Barry