On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:30 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --On Tuesday, December 09, 2014 11:36 -0600 Nico Williams > <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 02:49:41PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote: >>> As a member of or sympathizer with various societies for bear >>> encouragement and preservation (black, brown, polar, Cub >>> Scouts, Teddy, Pooh, ... in no particular order), I find this >>> name really objectionable. From the description, >>> "unbearerable" might have been better, "betterbearer" >>> certainly would have been. >> >> If the outcome is intended to be proof-of-possession >> extensions that render bearer token schemes >> no-longer-bearer... then "unbearable" seems better than >> "betterbearer", though I agree with you that "unbearable" >> comes across as potentially insulting. Maybe we should all be >> thick- skinned[*] enough to get the joke and move on, but: >> >>> I wonder if anyone has ever appealed a mailing list name. >> >> The risk here is that key participants might simply... ignore >> it until it's too late. I think the AD can probably do some >> promotion to try to avoid such an outcome. > > Nico, > > I was trying to keep the complaint light and at least slightly > humorous, but I am concerned that we seem to often choose names > for passing amusement value that later turn out to cause > confusion, bad attitudes or worse. Those reactions sometimes > occur in communities who are not normally visible in the IETF. > It may also be that my periodic involvement with the collection > of policy, strategy, organizational, administrative, and > regulatory issues that are mischaracterized as "Internet > governance" (more outside the IETF than inside) has left me > oversensitive, but I've had to listen to discussions --in > obvious and not-so-obvious places-- in which the IETF is > dismissed as a bunch of small children who are too impressed by > their own cleverness and busy and with activities like > self-congratulatory giggling about their latest in-joke or > esoteric debate about things that make no difference to be taken > seriously. > > Independent of how important those reactions actually are, with > the sorts of discussions going on that have been represented > here by the Internetgovtech and IANAPlan efforts, various > clusters of countries trying to impose their own views about how > the Internet should be structured and where those topics should > be discussed, reviews of IGF and other discussion arrangements > in progress, etc., it is probably not the best time to exhibit > how clever we can be about silly names for Working Groups, > Mailing Lists, or other activities. > > In that context, the risk of an appeal is that it would call > even more unwanted attention to the topic. Dear John, Agreed. Those within the IETF might be concerned even a simple concept is too politically charged. Perhaps a mailing-lists "soap-box" might divert distractions without curtailing individual expression. Regards, Douglas Otis