Dear colleagues, Once again, I'm speaking only for myself. I think there is an important matter here for the IETF community to think about, particularly as the Nomcom is _right now_ seeking nominees for open positions. I want to be very careful to emphasise that I do not intend to specify a preference for how things should go. This is because I am currently the IAB's liaison to the nomcom, and I therefore think it's important to avoid expressing my personal preferences in this case. But I encourage people to talk to the nomcom about their views on this general topic. (Also, if you have views about this, you might want to consider standing for an open IESG or IAB position.) So, On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 10:00:39AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > this is a press release. It would be naive at best to assume > that its intended audience would look at it and say "Ah. A bunch > of people with leadership roles in important Internet > organizations happened to be in the same place and decided to > make a statement in their individual capacities". Not only does > it not read that way, but there are conventions for delivering > the "individual capacity" message, including prominent use of > phrases like "for identification only". I don't think that "individual capacity" is what the identified people were doing at that meeting. They went to the meeting _as the chairs_ of the IAB and the IETF. Therefore, it is quite appropriate that they (but they alone) sign the statement in their capacity as chairs. And under those circumstances, I don't actually see what feedback about the statement could be appropriate. They did something, as chairs. They make a statement, as chairs, about it. Someone else's thoughts about what the meeting should have been about are certainly appropriate topics for discussion; but I don't see why those thoughts should affect the contents of a statement about the actual meeting that happened. Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs were attending a "chief officer"-type meeting: there were CEOs and so on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent the organizations of which they are chairs. John is quite right that people unfamiliar with the way the IETF or IAB work might interpret the statement along the lines of, "The CEO of the IETF said that the IETF subscribes to some view." Normally, the leader of an organization can direct that organization to some end; the Chair is the leader; therefore, the Chair can direct the organization. Of course, that's not how we operate (this is, I think, at the bottom of this very discussion). But others might get that impression. What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the chairs acting in that sort of "leader of organization" role. If we do accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue a joint communiqué with someone who has to go negotiate the contents of that communiqué (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx