Re: Defining the term SPONSOR for the IETF

["TS Glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

No Ted...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Theodore Tso" <tytso at mit.edu>
To: "TS Glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>
Cc: "IETF Discussion" <ietf at ietf.org>; "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
<jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Defining the term SPONSOR for the IETF


> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 07:23:20AM -0800, TS Glassey wrote:
> > Ted called me on that I was using a Term of Art which has not been
> > formally
> > defined here in the IETF so lets define the term SPONSOR ("Sponsor",
> > "SPONSOR") for use in the IETF's IP Processes.
>
> Todd, you just took a private e-mail that I sent to you and reposted
> part of it on the list.  Some would consider that a breach of e-mail
> etiquette.  I don't particularly care in this particular case, but
> fact of the matter is that "defining Sponsor for use in the IETF's IP
> Processes" is out of scope for the IETF mailing list.  If the IPR-wg
> thinks that it is even necessary to define that Term of Art, they can
> do so on the IPR-wg mailing list.

No Ted - I reacted to a private post you made about a public posting I made
and I did that by answering the criticism you made stating that because the
term wasnt properly defined in IETF-speak I couldnt use it.

I also want to point out that the term "PRIVATE" or "CONFIDENTIAL" never 
appeared in the mail to me, so as an officer of the IETF and one who does 
offer guidance to the operations of the IETF I took your suggestion about 
defining the term to heart.



> If the IPR-wg don't think it's in scope, there may not be any IETF
> mailing lists where the discussion of defining the term Sponsor may be
> in scope.  If there are no documents where work group consensus
> determines that such a term is needed either for discussing a
> particular draft document or to use in a particular draft document,
> that would not be a surprising result.
>
> In any case, it is not in scope of the IETF list, and I would gently
> ask that you take this discussion elsewhere.

So then Ted isnt the IETF WG list isnt the place where matters without a WG 
are discussed? Is that true? Seems to me that the IETF cannot do that 
without creating a new home for projects without a WG.

Todd Glassey
> Thank you.
>
> - Ted


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf