And yet... As a consultant, my primary affiliation is my consulting company. Yet there seems to be a feeling that I should disclose (at least to the NomCom chair) a list of my company's major customers, where "major" means more than x% of the company's income stream. I think that I agree with Stewart that the ambiguity in the definition makes for interpretation issues such that if my company had major dealings with Foo Corp and the selection process identified me and two employees of Foo Corp it would not be clear whether we should all serve or not. (I have a personal opinion about this, but that is not the point. The point is that there is no obvious guidance in the RFC.) Best, Adrian -- Read some fairy stories for adults of all ages • Tales from the Wood • More Tales from the Wood • Tales from Beyond the Wood • Tales from the Castle Get them on line https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/ Or buy a signed copy from me by post *** Stop me in the corridor at IETF-105 to get a copy *** -----Original Message----- From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern Sent: 09 July 2019 17:03 To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Future adjustment of nomcom company limits (Was: Re: Nomcom 2019-2020: Result of random selection process) The exclusion of a definition for "Primary Affiliation" was deliberate. And as far as I can tell it is necessary. I do not know any definition that will crisply catch all the cases. I am sure we could spend a long time wordsmithing something that still did not work. Yours, Joel On 7/9/19 11:53 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > As fas as I can see RFC7437 does not define "Primary Affiliation" which > seems an unfortunate omission. > > In this complex globalized industry, the absence of such a definition, > can make inclusion or exclusion from the final list arbitrary. > > - Stewart > >
