Responding to Andrew's message, but to other things said/asked as well. > > I think this is wildly inappropriate. First, here, as several people have mentioned: I should not have said "wildly"; that's hyperbole. I still think the way the letter was signed was inappropriate, but I'm sorry for including "wildly". > … I think it is wildly appropriate. The _very point_ of the IAB is > that it is not subject to consensus rules that the IETF is. But it *is* subject to consensus within itself, and there was not IAB consensus to publish the letter. My point is that those signing and posting it should have been more careful about making it *clear* to *non-IETF people* that they're giving personal opinion and are not speaking for the IAB. We should not assume that outsiders would understand that (and see more about the signatures below). > If IAB members cannot tell people, "I have this view and, by the way, > my community appointed me to this August Body precisely so that I > would have views and say them," then I am mystified what we want the > IAB for except simple constitutional duties. The NomCom did not appoint 12 IAB members for them to roam the (real or virtual) world making statements about the Internet as "Member, Internet Architecture Board". My point, again, is not that they need to *hide* their affiliation with the IAB, but that they should be very clear when they use that affiliation that they are not speaking for the IAB. People have asked whether this or that modification would have made me less sad, and the answer is very much "Yes," so let me give some examples: - It would have been much less of an issue for me if Ted had been the only one signing it, as I think it would have made it much less likely that people might think it came from the IAB. - It would have been *much* less of an issue for me, and perhaps none at all, if there had been some non-IAB signatures, as then it would have been pretty clear that this wasn't from the IAB. - It would have been somewhat less of an issue for me if company affiliations were included, as that would have diluted the "Member, IAB" part of the signatures. - Of course, it would have been no issue at all had there been a notation before the signatures to the effect of, "The IAB members signing below are speaking for themselves as individuals," or some such. And thanks, everyone, for the discussion of this. Barry
