--On Friday, 07 January, 2005 12:00 -0500 Michael StJohns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *bleah* Generally its better to have rules *before* the
> exceptional events occur.
>
> "The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement
> of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for
> exceptional cases only."
Personally I like that better. Much better. I even agree
about the "*bleah*" part. I was just trying to reflect the
position on which Harald believes consensus had been attained,
i.e., I was trying to improve the language without changing what
seemed to be the intent -- both the original language and
Harald's proposed new sentence would have left things in a state
in which the IAOC would probably first encounter the problem,
then start making rules.
If the effect of that language change is to identify a problem
with the intent and to get it fixed, I think that is great.
john
> At 11:32 AM 1/7/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
>> --On Friday, 07 January, 2005 16:56 +0100 Harald Tveit
>> Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > I think this line of thought has died down without any great
>> > disagreement.... the consensus seems to be that the
>> > following sentence:
>> >
>> > The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart
>> > from
>> > exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their services
>> > as members of the IAOC.
>> >
>> > belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the end
>> > of 4.0 makes for the most reasonable placement (together
>> > with all the stuff about membership selection).
>> >
>> > (Personally, I'm not fond of the word "exceptional". It begs
>> > the question of who grants exceptions, and what the criteria
>> > for exceptions are. But the debaters seem to favour it.
>> > I'd rather say "possible", and add "IAOC sets and publishes
>> > rules for reimbursement of expenses, if that ever becomes
>> > necessary". But I can live with the current text).
>>
>> Harald,
>>
>> At the risk of more on-list wordsmithing, and being
>> sympathetic to your preference above, would changing the
>> proposed sentence to read
>>
>> The IAOC members shall not receive any
>> compensation for their services as members of
>> the IAOC. Should exceptional circumstances
>> justify reimbursement of expenses, the IAOC
>> will set and publish rules for those cases.
>>
>> help sort this out?
>>
>> While trying to make fine distinctions by the choice of words
>> in a sentence is a disease to which I'm probably a lot more
>> prone than average, this proto-BCP seems like the wrong place
>> to do it. The form proposed earlier and repeated in your
>> message not only causes the potential for a debate about
>> "exceptional" but also for a debate about what it really
>> means to include expenses as a "service" that is being
>> performed. On the theory that clarity is a good thing if it
>> can be done easily, let's tie the prohibited "compensation"
>> to services only and then state that expense reimbursement is
>> an exceptional case and that the IAOC gets to figure out what
>> is exceptional and what the rules are.
>>
>> john
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
