Subject: Re: 'retired' in Organization in xml for Internet Draft?

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:53:32 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Hi -

>From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Oct 20, 2015 12:35 PM
>To: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
>Cc: IETF <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: 'retired' in Organization in xml for Internet Draft?
>
>Unless I missed a rather major political event, "retired" is not an
>organization you can be affiliated with.  Maybe I should put in
>"married" there next time?  (Can't put in "protestant", unfortunately.)

Seems like another way of saying that participation by us older
folks is unwelcome, as well as a way of discouraging participation
by independent contributors.  I prefer "retired" to "none" because
the former is more effective at keeping the headhunters at bay.

>[I remember vividly when someone who was between jobs created almost an
>international incident at a DIN meeting -- she made a little joke and
>filled in the organization field in the meeting roster with "housewife".

That's a perfectly legitimate occupation, and treating it as
a joke seems rather disrespectful of the people who find that
as their calling.

Randy

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:55:12 +0800

Folks,

Agree with Randy. I've seen "Unaffiliated" on some drafts, has not
caused any problems. But for the case where "retired" is true, that is
my preference.

/Loa

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:27:46 +0200

There is no need to give an organization at all.

(I wanted to start this sentence with "if you are not organized", but
I'm actually trying to make a point here...)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:11:44 +0200

The only place I know of where it matters to the IETF process what you
state as your organization is when checking for people who can serve on
the Nomcom together.

I guess nobody would be stupid enough to raise an issue with 3 people on
the nomcom all having as their primary affiliation "retired".....

Like the difference between Harald Alvestrand and Harald Tveit
Alvestrand ... why should anyone care?

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:51:42 +0200

> state as your organization is when 

some years back, a few of us tried to publish draft-itld-admin-00.txt.
megan, i think it was, said we must have an organization after "draft-"
we said "you must be kidding."  it became draft-ymbk-itld-admin-00.txt.
[ it had other, now amusing, qualities ]

randy

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:27:30 +0200

> There is no need to give an organization at all.

If one puts a blank " " in the Organization tag then the author list on
the first page is no longer uniform, there is a separation which brings
unwanted importance to names (i.e. there are the authors, a blank line
and then the second authors).

Alex

>
> (I wanted to start this sentence with "if you are not organized",
> but I'm actually trying to make a point here...)
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
> Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> caused any problems. But for the case where "retired" is true, that
>> is my preference.
>
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:43:38 -0400

--On Thursday, October 22, 2015 14:27 +0200 Alexandre Petrescu
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> unwanted importance to names (i.e. there are the authors, a
> blank line and then the second authors).

And so?
In any event, that seems like an issue for the XML2RFC and/or
rfc-interest lists.

   john