Subject: In Memoriam IETF web page

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:31:35 -0400

Folks,

A thread on the nanog list, about abha ahuja, reminds me of a suggestion 
I made casually to a few folk after the last IETF meeting:

      We should consider having a persistent IETF page in memory of 
people who were part of our community.

While the idea is simple, the comments I got back make clear that it 
needs to be pursued carefully.  That requires some formality.

There are two different lines of consideration. These are offered as a 
starting point for discussion:

1.   Who should be listed?

      A number of different models make sense, but the challenge is 
something that is workable. For example, it does not seem like the sort 
of thing that would be appropriate for a consensus call to the 
community, for each entry.  I think that means the rules should be 
entirely mechanical.

      Conceptually, the goal should be to include anyone who was "part 
of the IETF community".  I'll suggest that any of these would qualify:

      a. Held a formal position in the IETF (AD, WG Chair, IAOC/Trust,
         IAB, IRTF, Nomcom, ...are there others?)

      b. Held a position on an IETF committee (directorate,
         advisory, ...)

      c. Held a position on IETF staff (IAD, RFC Editor and, I think,
         this should include on-going contractors, including AMS and RFC
         document editors.

      d. RFC author

2.   What should be the form of the page?

      I suggest we keep it extremely simple:  an alphabetic listing by 
name, with a photo, if available, and a pointer to a page if they have 
one.  In some cases, the IETF might formulate its own page for a person, 
but that's distinct from this basic listing.

Thoughts?

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:36:46 -0400

I am very supportive of this idea.

Russ

On Oct 21, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> A thread on the nanog list, about abha ahuja, reminds me of a suggestion I made casually to a few folk after the last IETF meeting:
> 
>     We should consider having a persistent IETF page in memory of people who were part of our community.
> 
> While the idea is simple, the comments I got back make clear that it needs to be pursued carefully.  That requires some formality.
> 
> There are two different lines of consideration. These are offered as a starting point for discussion:
> 
> 
> 1.   Who should be listed?
> 
>     A number of different models make sense, but the challenge is something that is workable. For example, it does not seem like the sort of thing that would be appropriate for a consensus call to the community, for each entry.  I think that means the rules should be entirely mechanical.
> 
>     Conceptually, the goal should be to include anyone who was "part of the IETF community".  I'll suggest that any of these would qualify:
> 
>     I suggest we keep it extremely simple:  an alphabetic listing by name, with a photo, if available, and a pointer to a page if they have one.  In some cases, the IETF might formulate its own page for a person, but that's distinct from this basic listing.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:43:28 +0100

Good idea, but suggest to go wider than your a-d and stick to:
> anyone who was "part
> of the IETF community".

In practice, that will mean, anyone who someone else thinks was a part of the
community.

It would not be seemly to squabble about whether someone had really played a
significant part in the IETF, and would be better to include anyone on request.
I think the reality is that no=one would make the request unless they felt that
the IETF had been a significant part of the deceased's life.

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave
> Crocker
> Sent: 21 October 2012 17:32
> To: IETF Discussion
> Subject: In Memoriam IETF web page
> 
> Folks,
>

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:10:01 -0500

I feel a little bad saying this, because these individuals deserve 
recognition. But I rather think this memorial page is not a good idea.

If the IETF is around long enough, eventually all members of the 
community will die. (Unless medical science makes some amazing 
achievements, I suppose...) It's easy today to recognize a few people 
that made large contributions earlier in the IETF's history. But at some 
point the list will grow large, until it has lost its significance. And 
yet, at that point, it may be unseemly to stop the tradition, and even 
more unseemly to delete the existing memorial.

I don't want to be insensitive, and I'm sorry to point this out. But I 
think we're better off with heart-felt, personal memorials from living 
people that remember and care about the departed.

-Benson

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:55:40 -0400

--On Sunday, October 21, 2012 17:43 +0100 Adrian Farrel
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> In practice, that will mean, anyone who someone else thinks
> was a part of the community.
> 
> It would not be seemly to squabble about whether someone had
> really played a significant part in the IETF, and would be
> better to include anyone on request. I think the reality is
> that no=one would make the request unless they felt that the
> IETF had been a significant part of the deceased's life.

By itself, that would risk losing anyone who met one of Dave's
criteria but for "someone" didn't think to tell us.   So, while
I tend to agree with you, partially because there have been
people with significant impact on the IETF who don't meet any of
Dave's criteria, I think it maybe ought to be Dave's list plus
anyone for whom there is a request, rather than either-or.  I
note in particular that there are a number of people whom I
think had a significant impact on the IETF and on how we shaped
various protocols but who never attended a meeting, including,
e.g., a few late ITU-T Directors and ITU SGs and a few folks the
community often dismisses as loonies.

At the same time, I agree with Benson that such a list could
approach silliness and be impossible to stop.

   john

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:00:21 -0700

While I applaud the idea, I have to agree with Benson here. --dmm

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Benson Schliesser
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> If the IETF is around long enough, eventually all members of the community
> will die. (Unless medical science makes some amazing achievements, I
> suppose...) It's easy today to recognize a few people that made large
> contributions earlier in the IETF's history. But at some point the list will
> grow large, until it has lost its significance. And yet, at that point, it
> may be unseemly to stop the tradition, and even more unseemly to delete the
> existing memorial.
>
> I don't want to be insensitive, and I'm sorry to point this out. But I think
> we're better off with heart-felt, personal memorials from living people that
> remember and care about the departed.
>
> -Benson
>
>
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:59:11 -0500

i started the thread on nanog.  i am not sure abha or jon would want to
be on such a list.  remember them and honor and carry on their work,
don't memorialize them.

randy

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:09:46 -0700

> be on such a list.  remember them and honor and carry on their work,

+1

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:11:06 -0400

I'm supportive of ideas in this space.
I agree with Adrian that it would be far better to include someone that
some people don't recognize as influencing the community than to ever
get into an argument about excluding someone.
I am happy if others work out the details and trust to the community to
come up with something reasonable.

---

From: Turchanyi Geza <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:28:19 +0200

Randy,

> be on such a list.  remember them and honor and carry on their work,

I fully agree with you. However, unfortunately, a few years later some
people might not know that you meant Jon Postel, saying simple: Jon...

It is also a good question, who should write an "official" memorial page.
And, who should not.

 Any book about the heroes of the Internet would keep their memories. In
any language.
Mentioning just one conventional medium: book.

> randy

Géza

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:35:28 -0400

Folks,

Some follow-up to various postings.

We have long-established a pattern of taking a moment at IETF Plenaries 
to note a community loss.  My feeling is that something of this sort, 
which is worth doing in a plenary, is worth recording for longer term. 
Our world is increasingly ephemeral; this is one small way of improving 
our community memory.  I don't pretend to know what a potential listee 
might want, even for those I might know, or have known, well, but I'll 
note that most people do not turn down community recognition.  Jon 
didn't; Randy hasn't.

The real challenge is to formulate something both seemly in tone and 
workable for the long term.  Concern about the eventual size of the list 
is particularly apt, for a community that has sometimes been 
characterized as having the primary technical and operations task of 
worrying about scaling.  Indeed, scaling is part of the reason I 
suggested keeping the basic page so simple.  As for the list's 
eventually having thousands of names on it, I think that will be 
something to be proud of, not concerned about.

As for the selection criteria, it is certainly appealing to consider a 
more flexible and personal means of nominating folk.  The reason I 
suggested an entirely objective qualification mechanism is that the 
alternatives create some difficult, on-going challenges:  the process of 
nominating and approving will be quite easy for some/many/most, but not 
for all.  As an example, how will we feel about having the list contain 
the names of sockpuppets that have been active in the IETF?

Whatever criteria and process we choose, I suggest that they be simple 
and straightforward, avoiding the opportunity for debate about 
particular listings.

d/

---

From: Pelletier Ray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:26:58 -0400

> be on such a list.  remember them and honor and carry on their work,

With all respect, it is not just about the person, it is about their work, its importance, the history of this Internet and providing role models to others.

Ray

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:36:53 -0400

If this memorial wiki page could be open to anyone who ever contributed
to any I* and for whom there was at least one person who wanted to
contribute the information, then fine.  If not, then it would be yet
another situation where there will be a line between the in-crowd and
the out-crowd.  There's plenty of implicit elitism and idol worship in
the IETF, and I wouldn't want to cultivate it more.

Scott

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:42:27 -0400

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:35:28AM -0400, Dave Crocker wrote:
> some/many/most, but not for all.  As an example, how will we feel
> about having the list contain the names of sockpuppets that have
> been active in the IETF?

This question nicely identifies why the proposal makes me so
uncomfortable, and why I don't think I can support it, however much I
think there are contributors worth remembering.  

The question assumes that there is an easy way to identify the "we" of
"how will we feel", not to mention an easy way to tell who is a
sockpuppet.  Each of us doubtless has perfectly useful and effective
ways of making such identifications, but I doubt they'll be the same
for everyone.  

Because of that, at the beginning it would probably be pretty easy to
decide who'd be on the list.  In a few years, however, there'll be a
case where there are hard feelings about inclusion or non-inclusion of
someone.  (Anyone who thinks we are going to make "purely objective"
criteria and then stick to them is just dreaming.  We can't even do
that when bits on the wire are involved.)  That will inevitably result
in a small bit of process, or an appeal route, or something, and we'll
be off on yet another attempt to write perfectly balanced procedures
to ensure The Right Result comes out.  Those will be more cycles that
are spent on process rather than getting work done.

Obviously, if someone wants to set up the network memorial pages
(unaffiliated with the IETF), I can't see anything wrong with it.  I
just don't think it's an IETF activity.  

Best,
A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:43:12 -0700

> With all respect, it is not just about the person, it is about their work, its importance, the history of this Internet and providing role models to others.

And who gets to decide which "work" is worth putting in the memorial?

In the older case of Jon Postel, there are some things he did that pissed off some IETFers but made others quite happy. In at least one case, I believe that people representing both groups are still around and would want to "help" create the official IETF page for Jon.

In the recent case of RL "Bob" Morgan, most of what I would want to memorialize about his was his discussion manners and humor, which I think helped the IETF more than his technical contributions. I suspect a bunch of his friends would disagree with me and would want to emphasize his work in the many diverse areas.

The act of writing a history creates a story to be perpetuated. That's what Wikipedia and its interminable editing wars are for. Having Dave Crocker or Paul Hoffman or Randy Bush being the IETF Memorial Editor is simply not a good idea.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:50:21 -0500

> Having Dave Crocker or Paul Hoffman or Randy Bush being the IETF
> Memorial Editor is simply not a good idea.

i do not want to be an editor.  and, when it is my turn, i do not want
to be memorialized.

we struggle to do a half-assed job at editing technology.  we are
amazingly unqualified to edit history.

randy

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:52:07 -0400

It is quite common for technical societies (and, I assume, other professional associations) to note the passing of their members and contributors to their field. For many, the IETF is the closest thing they have to such a society and it is a key part of their professional and sometimes personal life.

We sometimes seem to worry too much about scaling problems that never actually occur; the discussion here seems to reflect one of them. I doubt that we'll be inundated with grieving relatives of one-time IETF attendees or IETF list subscribers who want their loved ones to be put on a web page.

If we want to keep this in the spirit of long-established (newspaper) traditions rather than a web page, we could use the IETF Journal for recording the passing of members of the community.

I also think that a longer list serves as a useful reminder that while we all are indebted to the pioneers, the Internet was built by a much larger number of people over the years, just like most human institutions.

As the first generation of contributors reaches zero on their time-to-live counter, this seems like the humane and professional thing to do, whatever precise form it takes.

Henning

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:02:33 -0400

> With all respect, it is not just about the person, it is about their work, its importance, the history of this Internet and providing role models to others.

This discussion has changed my mind.  I no longer support the creation of such a page.

A major factor in my changing my mind does not appear on this mail list, so I will share it.  In private I have received messages that can be summarized as: "If you make such a page, please do not put me on it."  These messages came from sources that clearly belong on such a page if it exists.

Russ

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:07:04 -0600

On 10/22/12 9:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote:

> In private I have received messages that can be summarized as: "If
>  you make such a page, please do not put me on it."  These messages
>  came from sources that clearly belong on such a page if it
> exists.

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want you to add people to such a page if
they're still sending you messages. Or does the Secretariat provide
seance services? ;-)

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:39:49 +0000

Good plan!

Sent from my iPad

---

From: Dick Franks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:06:38 +0100

+1

Better not to start a "tradition" which will become an intolerable
encumbrance even before we do!

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:25:47 -0400

> ways of making such identifications, but I doubt they'll be the same

The proposal I posted offered specific roles and types of activity that 
would qualify.  It also asked some targeted questions.

The proposal is for a list of folk who have been active in the IETF. 
That's different from "relevant" to the IETF or active more generally in 
the Internet.

So far, the various notes expressing concerns have been quite generic, 
or have objected to details that weren't proposed.

It might be helpful to have some comments about the specifics that were 
offered.  For example, in what way are they inadequate?

d/

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:10:56 -0400

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:25:47AM -0400, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The proposal I posted offered specific roles and types of activity
> that would qualify.  It also asked some targeted questions.

As I guess I suggested, I believe the idea that the objectivity is
going to last is just wishful thinking.  If I'm wrong about that, then
the list will not do the job we want of it.

You offered categories that would automatically qualify people.
Inevitably, there are going to be cases where some subset of the
community thought that a person who qualifies under those criteria was
notable primarily in the negative sense.  They weren't a contributor,
but rather did harm, either to the organization or to the protocol in
question (or both).  As soon as we run into such a case, there will be
a debate.  If not, the list will just be a list of the historical IETF
in-crowd (if I read him correctly, that's Scott Brim's objection).  A
cool kids list is hardly a fitting memorial to the people we are
trying to identify -- those giants on whose shoulders we stand.

I think it more likely that, in response to a controversial case,
we'll invent a new process to manage.  I think that's a threat to the
IETF, and it would be ironic if the list meant to lionize earlier
contributors managed to consume the very mechanism they used for
making their contributions.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:09:08 -0400

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> If we want to keep this in the spirit of long-established 
> (newspaper) traditions rather than a web page, we could use the 
> IETF Journal for recording the passing of members of the community.

This seems reasonable and fitting for all qualifications.

-- 
HLS

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:48:08 +0100

> If we want to keep this in the spirit of long-established (newspaper) traditions rather than a web page, we could use the IETF Journal for recording the passing of members of the community.

This sounds like the best suggestion to me so far
if something is to be done. Second best would be
to do nothing.

S.

---

From: Matthew Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:38:22 +0100

> if something is to be done. Second best would be

In the last issue, we briefly noted the passing of Bob Morgan in the online version (http://www.internetsociety.org/articles/implementing-identity-management-solutions) though it was too late for the print issue. In the latest issue we've posted a tribute to Wendy Rickard (http://www.internetsociety.org/articles/remembering-wendy-rickard) both online and in print.

I think the IETF Journal is a fine place to publish obituaries or memorials of IETF contributors to recognise their work and I'd encourage anyone moved to write such text to send it to [email-masked].

Mat

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:32:05 +0200

Henning,

I like what you are suggesting, but let me add two things:

  * The ITU does something interesting for notable individuals, which is
    that they offer a space on a web page to collect condolences.  Such
    a virtual book could be then presented to the family, to mark the
    important contributions an individual made.  Often times family
    members have no concept of just how important a person has been to
    their profession, nor how many friends that person REALLY had.
  * On the other side of the coin, I do wish we'd do a better job
    celebrating the achievements of those in our community who are ALIVE.

As Dave might say, these two points are not mutually exclusive.

Eliot

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:54:48 +0300

I wish I had known Abha. I recently searched for information about her, as I was curious about her short AD career on some statistic that I looked up. She seemed like a very nice person based on the stories that I found.

But back to topic. I'm with Benson on this issue. And I also think that whoever we at the IETF think is "important" probably wrote enough important RFCs. At least for me, those RFCs far outweigh any "in memoriam" RFC that might be written for him or her. Those RFCs are the ones that I want to remember those persons from.

But I do like the idea of in memoriam articles in the IETF journal.

Jari