> On 19 Nov 2019, at 14:52, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Barry, > > I didn't co-sign the letter, but frankly I would have (with affiliation) if I wasn't quite as busy when it was put forth by Ted. For what it's worth, same. (Time zones are hard. That's a different rant, though.) > If you're suggesting that IAB and IESG members can't ever use their affiliation unless it's on a document approved by the entire body, I'm going to strongly disagree. It also goes against precedent; members of the IAB have signed letters, amicus briefs, and so on with IAB affiliation when that affiliation is the one that is relevant to the content of the letter. Cheers, Brian > I think most people know the difference between a statement of a member of Parliament and one by the entire body. This is not an employment relationship, where putting a company next to your name does have some impact. > > I think we as a community want our leadership to be more like the former than the latter. This idea that the leadership bodies are homogenous and speak with a single voice is IMHO damaging and leads to situations where it's perceived to be us-vs-them -- by both the members of those bodies and the greater community. > > Cheers, > > >> On 19 Nov 2019, at 2:42 pm, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Perhaps some of you have seen that Ted Hardie posted an open letter on >> the Hong Kong high court’s injunction on Internet speech: >> https://medium.com/@ted.ietf/an-open-letter-on-the-hong-kong-high-court-injunction-on-internet-speech-7f0048df2f54 >> The letter is signed by Ted and is co-signed by three other IAB >> members, each signing as an individual: the letter is not from the IAB >> and doesn’t claim to be. >> >> Nevertheless, note that all signatories identify themselves as >> “Member, Internet Architecture Board”, and three of the four do not >> list their company affiliations. This has two effects: >> >> 1. By being signed by four IAB members who are identified primarily as >> IAB members, the letter *appears* to be from the IAB. I have passed >> this by three non-IETF friends, asking them who they think the letter >> is from, and all three said, “The Internet Architecture Board.” >> >> 2. By using “Member, Internet Architecture Board” this way, those >> signing the letter are effectively (whether by intent or not) using >> their IAB positions to gain credibility for their personal opinions. >> >> I think this is wildly inappropriate. I think those of us in IETF >> leadership should be scrupulously careful NOT to call out our IETF >> affiliations this way unless we are speaking for the organization. >> The fact that the letter refers to things that have been published >> with IAB consensus doesn’t change the fact that the *letter* does not >> have IAB consensus, and we must be careful not to give the impression >> that it does. >> >> I’ve discussed this with Ted, who thinks that there’s nothing wrong >> with how the letter was signed and posted. That disturbs me. I tried >> to let it go, but I’m sufficiently bothered by it that I felt the need >> to take it to the community. This is that. Ted tells me that all IAB >> members were invited to co-sign the letter, and that none brought up a >> concern about the use of the “Member, IAB” affiliation. >> >> As you think about this and — I hope — discuss it, please keep this in mind: >> >> - I’m NOT talking about the content of the message and whether I do or >> don’t agree with it. That’s not the point. I hope that as we discuss >> this we do NOT go into the content, the politics, and so on. Let’s >> please keep this highly charged issue out of IETF discussions. >> >> - I’m NOT looking to beat Ted up here; what I want is for this not to >> happen again, and I hope the ensuing discussion supports that. >> >> -- >> Barry >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > >
