On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:25:47AM -0400, Dave Crocker wrote: > The proposal I posted offered specific roles and types of activity > that would qualify. It also asked some targeted questions. As I guess I suggested, I believe the idea that the objectivity is going to last is just wishful thinking. If I'm wrong about that, then the list will not do the job we want of it. You offered categories that would automatically qualify people. Inevitably, there are going to be cases where some subset of the community thought that a person who qualifies under those criteria was notable primarily in the negative sense. They weren't a contributor, but rather did harm, either to the organization or to the protocol in question (or both). As soon as we run into such a case, there will be a debate. If not, the list will just be a list of the historical IETF in-crowd (if I read him correctly, that's Scott Brim's objection). A cool kids list is hardly a fitting memorial to the people we are trying to identify -- those giants on whose shoulders we stand. I think it more likely that, in response to a controversial case, we'll invent a new process to manage. I think that's a threat to the IETF, and it would be ironic if the list meant to lionize earlier contributors managed to consume the very mechanism they used for making their contributions. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx