Nico, On 20-Nov-19 07:31, Nico Williams wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 05:18:41PM +0800, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Yes, I agree that clarity here is good. However, "Member of IAB" is >> pretty specific, just as "Member of Parliament" is specific; it is >> clearly distinguishing the part from the whole. > > Excellent and clarifying analogy. MPs and such often speak publicly for > themselves while using their membership of whatever august/lame body > they are members of, yet no one mistakes their speech for that of the > larger body. > > Since the IAB does not speak for the community, ISTM that the only ones > with authority to object are the IAB itself, and maybe its chartering > authority. The chartering body is the IETF, since the IAB charter is a BCP. > That doesn't mean that IETF participants can't object to IAB members > using their IAB membership as a credential, but it does deny those > objections weight. The IETF as a whole could legitimately object, presumably by way of persuading the IESG to call a rough consensus to do so. So Barry's objection could have been signed "Barry, an IETF participant", but it wasn't. It did not request any action by the IAB or the IESG, or ask for support for Barry's viewpoint. Comment is free. It's certainly better to keep the underlying issues out of IETF debates, except when we tread with great care as we did for RFC1984, RFC2804 and RFC7258. Using those RFCs in civil society debates is more ISOC's job than the IETF's, IMHO. I do agree with the idea that when speaking in public on such sensitive matters, it is wise to be very precise about the role in which one is speaking, e.g. "IAB member, writing in my private capacity" or something like that. Brian Carpenter, an IETF participant, writing IMNSHO
