Folks,
Some follow-up to various postings.
We have long-established a pattern of taking a moment at IETF Plenaries
to note a community loss. My feeling is that something of this sort,
which is worth doing in a plenary, is worth recording for longer term.
Our world is increasingly ephemeral; this is one small way of improving
our community memory. I don't pretend to know what a potential listee
might want, even for those I might know, or have known, well, but I'll
note that most people do not turn down community recognition. Jon
didn't; Randy hasn't.
The real challenge is to formulate something both seemly in tone and
workable for the long term. Concern about the eventual size of the list
is particularly apt, for a community that has sometimes been
characterized as having the primary technical and operations task of
worrying about scaling. Indeed, scaling is part of the reason I
suggested keeping the basic page so simple. As for the list's
eventually having thousands of names on it, I think that will be
something to be proud of, not concerned about.
As for the selection criteria, it is certainly appealing to consider a
more flexible and personal means of nominating folk. The reason I
suggested an entirely objective qualification mechanism is that the
alternatives create some difficult, on-going challenges: the process of
nominating and approving will be quite easy for some/many/most, but not
for all. As an example, how will we feel about having the list contain
the names of sockpuppets that have been active in the IETF?
Whatever criteria and process we choose, I suggest that they be simple
and straightforward, avoiding the opportunity for debate about
particular listings.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net