On 27/03/2016 03:17, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Saturday, March 26, 2016 10:36 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
> <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> If the documents clearly define the term "design team" as
>> teams that are created by a decision in an IETF process, I
>> have very few problem extending "IETF contribution" to
>> contributions to the design team.
>>
>> If (as I've sometimes seen) everyone who meets to hash out an
>> idea wants to call themselves + their friends is a "design
>> team", then I see a problem with the extension.
>>
>> The lunchtime "bar BOF" would be a nice test case - arranged
>> by WG chairs over the WG (or IETF non-WG) mailing list, it
>> would be an IETF activity with IETF contribution; arranged
>> between friends on the way out of the preceding WG meeting, it
>> would (I think) not be.
>
> I think this is a good summary of a reasonable way to draw the
> line.
I agree. In terms of wording in the draft, I'll repeat that
referring to RFC 2418 seems appropriate (rather than relying
on duplicate definitions of terms). To be exact, perhaps:
Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and
electronic communications, which are addressed to:
o the IETF plenary session,
o any IETF working group [BCP25] or portion thereof,
o any IETF "birds of a feather" (BOF) session or portion thereof,
o any IETF design team [BCP25] or portion thereof,
o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
...
(I intentionally deleted "-sanctioned". As far as I can see it's
redundant and confuses the issue.)
Incidentally, does the "the IESG, or any member thereof" cover
IETF Directorates, which are established by individual IESG members?
Brian
> For the second case, I do note that there have been
> attempts by non-participants to define the second sort of group
> as a design team in order to give them (or the WG Chairs)
> leverage over membership and participation. But I'd hope to
> keep that separate... and a WG Chair could, subject to appeal,
> designate such a group as a design team if it seemed to be
> getting out of hand, so maybe there is no problem in practice.
>
> john
>
>
>
>