Re: "Stuckees?"

[Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>]

This was actually the issue that caused me to move away from the term
"members"
when writing the draft.  I also wanted something that conveyed accepting a
responsibility,
rather than acquiring a set of rights or privileges.

I can certainly understand folks' concerns about taking an informal word
like stuckees (which
seems to be in common use around the bits of the IETF I'm involved in) and
turning
it into the designation used to get funds from a manager.  Let's put that
question aside,
for the moment, though, and look at the broader question:  does the IETF
need this
role (whatever it is called) at this point?

If there is, then it may be valuable to wordsmith the term.  If there isn't
then we can
drop this and go on with other ideas.
                                        regards,
                                                Ted Hardie


At 12:37 PM 2/25/2003 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> I think that "member" implies some level of "membership" -- but
> the IETF doesn't have "members".  What constitutes membership
> in the IETF?
>
> -derek
>
> pregen@egenconsulting.com writes:
>
> > I like "core WG members" a lot.  That's kind of what we call ourselves
> > anyway.
> > ___________________
> > Patricia Egen Consulting
> > www.egenconsulting.com
> > 423-875-2652
>
> --
>        Derek Atkins
>        Computer and Internet Security Consultant
>        derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com