--On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 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. Nico, I actually dispute the validity of the analogy. "Member of Parliament" works, and works the way you and others have suggested, because most likely readers know what a parliament (or other representative legislative body) is and more or less how they work. They may even have had reason to conclude that, democracy being what it is, that some members of some parliaments may actually be clods or utter fools. Consequently, they know that "Member of Parliament" is an identification tag and not a claim to authority on behalf of the parliament or the country. By contrast, "King of Lower Slobbovia" is most likely a claim to authority, perhaps so even if one knows that Lower Slobbovia is a constitutional monarchy in which the king is usually accepted to be seen and not heard and would be ignored or overthrown if he spoke up on any matter of national political substance. "Member of IAB" is not like "Member of Parliament" unless one actually knows what the IAB is, something about its relationship to the community and the Internet, and what our customs are with regard to role and authority identification (e.g., that almost all consensus documents issued by the IAB are signed by one member with "for the IAB" in them or are otherwise clear that they are IAB documents (for example as Ted noted, such documents always, or almost always, appear on the IAB's web page). Without that knowledge the reader cannot know whether four people signing a document and identifying themselves as "Member of IAB" is just four guys with a shared opinion or whether it is the formal statement of a deliberative body with a high level of qualifications and expertise in the relevant area. If that does not make the distinction clear enough, consider what assumptions you would make if you received an authoritative-looking document or letter signed by four people who identified themselves as Justices of the Supreme Court of some country. Personal opinions or legally-binding decision? If you (or any other random reader unfamiliar with that country's politics and traditions) aren't sure about the answer, it makes a very strong case for including language that avoids any possible doubt. As Brian and others have pointed out, adding the few words needed to be clear that someone is expressing a personal, rather than institutional or organizational, opinion is not hard. If someone would have already made the right guess, those words are also harmless. If they have guessed wrong, it might be important. And, if the IAB (or IAB members) have gotten out of the habit of being clear about that distinction, I suggest that it is time they get back into it. best, john
