From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sat Jan 4 11:35:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H870090477XTF@eListX.com> (original mail from dhc@dcrocker.net); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 11:31:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H870090177WTD@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 11:31:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H870090177WTC@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 11:31:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H870083Y77V2O@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 11:31:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26519; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 08:28:18 -0800 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 00:19:28 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Question regarding new rules for Mid term vacancies In-reply-to: <3DFDA274.4010407@acm.org> To: Avri Doria Cc: ietf-nomcom Message-id: <15195692057.20030104001928@brandenburg.com> Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62 Christmas Edition) Personal Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3DFDA274.4010407@acm.org> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Avri, Monday, December 16, 2002, 1:52:52 AM, you wrote: Avri> This is the question of whether the voting members of one Avri> year's nomcom should be excluded from volunteering or serving Avri> as voting members on the following year's nomcom. what problem is created by having someone on both nomcoms? (I can think of no real problem, or else people would be excluded from serving on consecutive nomcoms.) unless there is a real problem that is serious, it would be better to ignore the issue. d/ -- Dave Brandenburg InternetWorking t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sat Jan 4 16:55:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700I04M3S8G@eListX.com> (original mail from jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com) ; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 16:52:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700I01M3S8E@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 16:52:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700I01M3S8D@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 16:52:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.25]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8700F5FM3R0V@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 16:52:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.157.125.48.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([64.157.125.48] helo=ix.netcom.com) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18UwBE-00083b-00; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 16:50:08 -0500 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 15:52:20 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Subject: Re: Question regarding new rules for Mid term vacancies To: Dave Crocker Cc: Avri Doria , ietf-nomcom Message-id: <3E1773B4.38107AAC@ix.netcom.com> Organization: INEGroup Spokesman MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3DFDA274.4010407@acm.org> <15195692057.20030104001928@brandenburg.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Dave and all, Dave, as you should know the problem(s) are rather obvious and numerous as well... They have been discussed on a number of occasions, which you should already know, and I believe that you do know... Hence your hyperbole here is rather unproductive at a minimum... Dave Crocker wrote: > Avri, > > Monday, December 16, 2002, 1:52:52 AM, you wrote: > Avri> This is the question of whether the voting members of one > Avri> year's nomcom should be excluded from volunteering or serving > Avri> as voting members on the following year's nomcom. > > what problem is created by having someone on both nomcoms? (I can think of > no real problem, or else people would be excluded from serving on > consecutive nomcoms.) > > unless there is a real problem that is serious, it would be better to ignore > the issue. > > d/ > -- > Dave > Brandenburg InternetWorking > t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sat Jan 4 17:15:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700I04N1QT4@eListX.com> (original mail from mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 17:13:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700I01N1PT2@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 17:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700I01N1PT1@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 17:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from kalia.dbc.mtview.ca.us (adsl-64-168-10-254.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net [64.168.10.254]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8700F5IN1O0Z@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 17:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from kalia.dbc.mtview.ca.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kalia.dbc.mtview.ca.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id h04MAIph000747; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:10:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:10:18 -0800 From: Marshall Rose Subject: Re: Question regarding new rules for Mid term vacancies In-reply-to: <3E1773B4.38107AAC@ix.netcom.com> To: Jeff Williams Cc: dhc@dcrocker.net, avri@acm.org, ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <20030104141018.3b0cd373.mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Organization: Dover Beach Consulting, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.8claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-unknown-netbsdelf1.6) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3DFDA274.4010407@acm.org> <15195692057.20030104001928@brandenburg.com> <3E1773B4.38107AAC@ix.netcom.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: > Dave and all, > > Dave, as you should know the problem(s) are rather obvious > and numerous as well... They have been discussed on a number > of occasions, which you should already know, and I believe that > you do know... Hence your hyperbole here is rather unproductive > at a minimum... hmmm... i seem to recall being involved with the nomcom rules from the beginning, but i don't seem to recall the obvious/numerous problems to which you refer. perhaps you would be kind enough to briefly enumerate the problems as you see them? /mtr From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sat Jan 4 19:25:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700L04SVQO6@eListX.com> (original mail from jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com) ; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:19:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700L01SVQO4@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:19:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700L01SVQO3@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:19:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8700F87SVP0Z@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:19:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-65.56.127.251.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([65.56.127.251] helo=ix.netcom.com) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18UySn-0002eW-00; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:16:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:18:37 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Subject: Re: Question regarding new rules for Mid term vacancies To: Marshall Rose Cc: dhc@dcrocker.net, avri@acm.org, ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3E1795FD.3C904114@ix.netcom.com> Organization: INEGroup Spokesman MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3DFDA274.4010407@acm.org> <15195692057.20030104001928@brandenburg.com> <3E1773B4.38107AAC@ix.netcom.com> <20030104141018.3b0cd373.mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Marshall and all, Marshall Rose wrote: > > Dave and all, > > > > Dave, as you should know the problem(s) are rather obvious > > and numerous as well... They have been discussed on a number > > of occasions, which you should already know, and I believe that > > you do know... Hence your hyperbole here is rather unproductive > > at a minimum... > > hmmm... i seem to recall being involved with the nomcom rules from the > beginning, but i don't seem to recall the obvious/numerous problems to which you > refer. I am sorry to hear that your memory is less than optimum. Perhaps it is due to the ravages of aging. >;) If I may be so bold or presumptuous, perhaps a regular regiment of taking some Genko Bolba tablets twice daily would improve your memory loss situation. > > > perhaps you would be kind enough to briefly enumerate the problems as you see > them? Certainly. I will be very brief as well. - One problem with what Avri is referring to is that serving in both or following years Noncom's is that you may encourage or promote cliquish behavior which usually leads to lock step processes and stymies new ideas.. > > > /mtr Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sat Jan 4 19:25:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700L04SWRQE@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@sm.luth.se); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:19:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700L01SWQQC@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:19:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700L01SWQQB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from lakecmmtao02.coxmail.com (lakecmmtao02.coxmail.com [68.99.120.61]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8700F8ASWQ0Z@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from sm.luth.se ([68.15.42.104]) by lakecmmtao02.coxmail.com (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030105001705.NJEH11973.lakecmmtao02.coxmail.com@sm.luth.se> for ; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:17:05 -0500 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:17:05 -0500 From: avri doria Subject: Re: Question regarding new rules for Mid term vacancies To: ietf-nomcom Message-id: <3E177981.8090801@sm.luth.se> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 References: <3DFDA274.4010407@acm.org> <15195692057.20030104001928@brandenburg.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Dave Crocker wrote: > Avri, > > Monday, December 16, 2002, 1:52:52 AM, you wrote: > Avri> This is the question of whether the voting members of one > Avri> year's nomcom should be excluded from volunteering or serving > Avri> as voting members on the following year's nomcom. > > what problem is created by having someone on both nomcoms? (I can think of > no real problem, or else people would be excluded from serving on > consecutive nomcoms.) > > unless there is a real problem that is serious, it would be better to ignore > the issue. > I think the problem involved a possible confusion between the tasks of the old nomcom and of the new nomcom. I don't think this was seen as a serious problem, just a possible issue involved in the change of rules and therefore it was brought up. Also it would possibly place added confidentiality burdens on the person(s) serving in both as they would need to keep discussions occurring in the new nomcom private from folks serving in the old nomcom. This burden of compartmentalized confidentiality would also apply to the nomcom chair of the old nomcom serving as liaison to the new nomcom. Since information is allowed to flow from a previous nomcom into a future nomcom, the confidentiality issue would not occur in that direction. I have not heard of anyone feeling this overlap in service would be a large problem. Does anyone on the list think this overlap in service is a problem? a. -- Avri Doria http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/ From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sat Jan 4 19:35:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700L04TBHZI@eListX.com> (original mail from jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com) ; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:28:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700L01TBGZG@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:28:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8700L01TBGZF@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:28:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8700F8PTBG0Z@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:28:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-65.56.127.251.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([65.56.127.251] helo=ix.netcom.com) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18Uybz-0002QS-00; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:25:56 -0500 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:28:08 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Subject: Re: Question regarding new rules for Mid term vacancies To: avri doria Cc: ietf-nomcom Message-id: <3E179837.12B726BE@ix.netcom.com> Organization: INEGroup Spokesman MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3DFDA274.4010407@acm.org> <15195692057.20030104001928@brandenburg.com> <3E177981.8090801@sm.luth.se> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Avri and all, No this is not really a large problem, but it is one of several problems. I listed one other on this thread earlier... What surprises me is that we are again rehashing this situation yet again, and Dave is suggesting to just ignore the whole situation... ??? avri doria wrote: > Dave Crocker wrote: > > Avri, > > > > Monday, December 16, 2002, 1:52:52 AM, you wrote: > > Avri> This is the question of whether the voting members of one > > Avri> year's nomcom should be excluded from volunteering or serving > > Avri> as voting members on the following year's nomcom. > > > > what problem is created by having someone on both nomcoms? (I can think of > > no real problem, or else people would be excluded from serving on > > consecutive nomcoms.) > > > > unless there is a real problem that is serious, it would be better to ignore > > the issue. > > > > I think the problem involved a possible confusion between the tasks of the > old nomcom and of the new nomcom. I don't think this was seen as a serious > problem, just a possible issue involved in the change of rules and > therefore > it was brought up. Also it would possibly place added confidentiality > burdens on > the person(s) serving in both as they would need to keep discussions > occurring > in the new nomcom private from folks serving in the old nomcom. This burden > of compartmentalized confidentiality would also apply to the nomcom chair of > the old nomcom serving as liaison to the new nomcom. Since information is > allowed to flow from a previous nomcom into a future nomcom, the > confidentiality > issue would not occur in that direction. > > I have not heard of anyone feeling this overlap in service would be a large > problem. Does anyone on the list think this overlap in service is a > problem? > > a. > > -- > Avri Doria > http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sat Jan 4 22:05:00 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H880010404UPW@eListX.com> (original mail from dhc@dcrocker.net); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 21:55:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H880010104TPU@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 21:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H880010104TPT@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 21:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8800M4M04SEU@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 21:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA10319 for ; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:52:54 -0800 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:52:50 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Question regarding new rules for Mid term vacancies In-reply-to: <20030104141018.3b0cd373.mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <13637756480.20030104185250@brandenburg.com> Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62 Christmas Edition) Personal Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3DFDA274.4010407@acm.org> <15195692057.20030104001928@brandenburg.com> <3E1773B4.38107AAC@ix.netcom.com> <20030104141018.3b0cd373.mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Folks, >> Dave, as you should know the problem(s) are rather obvious >> and numerous as well... They have been discussed on a number >> of occasions, which you should already know, and I believe that >> you do know... Hence your hyperbole here is rather unproductive >> at a minimum... Marshall> perhaps you would be kind enough to briefly enumerate the problems as you see Marshall> them? Please, no. That was Jeff Williams pretending to reply to me. For those needing a refresher course: d/ -- Dave Brandenburg InternetWorking t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sat Jan 4 22:25:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H88002041CYA1@eListX.com> (original mail from jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com) ; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 22:22:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H88002011CX9Z@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 22:22:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H88002011CX9Y@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 22:22:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8800M6D1CXEU@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 22:22:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.157.126.210.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([64.157.126.210] helo=ix.netcom.com) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18V1K0-0003Ka-00; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 22:19:33 -0500 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 21:21:45 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Subject: Re: Question regarding new rules for Mid term vacancies To: Dave Crocker Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3E17C0E8.C7978BC@ix.netcom.com> Organization: INEGroup Spokesman MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3DFDA274.4010407@acm.org> <15195692057.20030104001928@brandenburg.com> <3E1773B4.38107AAC@ix.netcom.com> <20030104141018.3b0cd373.mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us> <13637756480.20030104185250@brandenburg.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Dave and all, Another more interesting and honest review or Mr. Crocker can be reviewed at: http://www.dnso.com/incompetence/crocker/ Dave Crocker wrote: > Folks, > > >> Dave, as you should know the problem(s) are rather obvious > >> and numerous as well... They have been discussed on a number > >> of occasions, which you should already know, and I believe that > >> you do know... Hence your hyperbole here is rather unproductive > >> at a minimum... > > Marshall> perhaps you would be kind enough to briefly enumerate the problems as you see > Marshall> them? > > Please, no. > > That was Jeff Williams pretending to reply to me. > > For those needing a refresher course: > > > > d/ > -- > Dave > Brandenburg InternetWorking > t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jan 5 01:25:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H88006049FSBM@eListX.com> (original mail from dhc@dcrocker.net); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 01:16:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H88006019FSBK@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 01:16:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H88006019FRBJ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 01:16:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8800MDQ9FREU@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 01:16:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15342 for ; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 22:13:53 -0800 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 22:04:57 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: criteria for nomcom participation In-reply-to: <3DEBDA7B.3090502@acm.org> To: ietf-nomcom Message-id: <8349281342.20030104220457@brandenburg.com> Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62 Christmas Edition) Personal Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3DEBDA7B.3090502@acm.org> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Folks, Monday, December 2, 2002, 2:11:07 PM, you wrote: Avri> The first issue involved the qualification for volunteering with the Avri> basic question being was attendance at 2 out 3 of the last IETF Avri> meetings a sufficient criteria. Avri> Joel Halpern observed that we seem to have a problem of not getting enough Avri> experienced IETF participants on the nomcom. We need to encourage more Avri> participation. He didn't like the idea of 2 pools. Maybe 4 out of 6 Avri> IETF Avri> meeting would be better then 2 out of 3? ... Avri> Dave Allen commented in favor of allowing people who had attended many Avri> IETFs to be included, The problem with a criterion of meeting attendance is that it has a weak correlation with knowing anything about the job of managing the IETF. Even continued participation in working group discussions has a weak correlation. For that matter, there seems to be rough consensus that it is quite common to have people who attend the IETF but not do any real participation in the technical work. If we want to ensure that nomcom has participation by people who know about IETF processes, then we need to ensure that it has participation by people who have been directly involved in the administrative process. That means chairs, editors, (former) ADs and (former) IAB members. Such a pool of potential participaants is too small -- and too select -- to be adequate for the entire membership of nomcom. That is the reason for suggesting filling some nomcom slots -- choose a percentage: 25%, 33%, 40%, 50%? -- from a pool of those who have held formal positions and another pool of those who have a recent attendance record, to fill the remaining nomcom slots. Yes, this is more complicated than anyone would like. But simply changing the number of meetings one must attend does not in any way assure knowledge of IETF process. Avri> Harald suggested two changes: Avri> - add a statement to the oral tradition 'if you don't know how the IETF Avri> works don't volunteer for NomCom. This represents a fine desire, but is not likely to serve as a very effective filter. As merely one example: Avri> John Klensin ...worried about the "don't volunteer" folk self Avri> selecting out in favor of the ax grinders. d/ -- Dave Brandenburg InternetWorking t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jan 5 09:35:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8800F04WBSQX@eListX.com> (original mail from harald@alvestrand.no); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 09:31:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8800F01WBSQV@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 09:31:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8800F01WBSQU@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 09:31:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (nat.alvestrand.no [217.13.28.204]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8800BG0WBRR7@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 09:31:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no [192.168.1.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B8262207; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 15:28:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 15:28:31 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: criteria for nomcom participation In-reply-to: <8349281342.20030104220457@brandenburg.com> To: Dave Crocker , ietf-nomcom Message-id: <220480000.1041776911@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-disposition: inline References: <3DEBDA7B.3090502@acm.org> <8349281342.20030104220457@brandenburg.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Dave, 1) do you have a specific suggestion, or are you just theorizing abou= t the=20 boundaries of the problem space? 2) the rough consensus so far seems to be that the criterion we want = is=20 knowledge of the IETF process, and that attending meetings is the cri= terion=20 that we've found that is easy to manage and may have some correlation= . --On l=F8rdag, januar 04, 2003 22:04:57 -0800 Dave Crocker =20 wrote: > Avri> Harald suggested two changes: > Avri> - add a statement to the oral tradition 'if you don't know= how > the IETF Avri> works don't volunteer for NomCom. > > This represents a fine desire, but is not likely to serve as a very > effective filter. > > As merely one example: > > Avri> John Klensin ...worried about the "don't volunteer" folk self > Avri> selecting out in favor of the ax grinders. the purpose I saw in adding this to the oral tradition was to make it= clear=20 what kind of people we *want* on the nomcom (namely people who unders= tand=20 how the IETF works), even though we don't know how to select objectiv= ely on=20 that criterion. Harald From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jan 5 11:25:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900I041CI2D@eListX.com> (original mail from dhc@dcrocker.net); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 11:19:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900I011CI2B@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 11:19:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900I011CI2A@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 11:19:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8900G3C1CH51@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 11:19:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27499; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 08:16:39 -0800 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 08:16:10 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: criteria for nomcom participation In-reply-to: <220480000.1041776911@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: ietf-nomcom Message-id: <2685954826.20030105081610@brandenburg.com> Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62 Christmas Edition) Personal Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3DEBDA7B.3090502@acm.org> <8349281342.20030104220457@brandenburg.com> <220480000.1041776911@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Dave, Sunday, January 5, 2003, 6:28:31 AM, you wrote: Harald> 1) do you have a specific suggestion, or are you just theorizing about the Harald> boundaries of the problem space? Sorry. I thought my note was rather explicit about making a suggestion. Please tell me in what way: Dave> If we want to ensure that nomcom has participation by people who know about Dave> IETF processes, then we need to ensure that it has participation by people Dave> who have been directly involved in the administrative process. That means Dave> chairs, editors, (former) ADs and (former) IAB members. Dave> Dave> Such a pool of potential participaants is too small -- and too select -- to Dave> be adequate for the entire membership of nomcom. That is the reason for Dave> suggesting filling some nomcom slots -- choose a percentage: 25%, 33%, 40%, Dave> 50%? -- from a pool of those who have held formal positions and another pool Dave> of those who have a recent attendance record, to fill the remaining nomcom Dave> slots. is not clear as a suggestion. Harald> 2) the rough consensus so far seems to be that the criterion we want is Harald> knowledge of the IETF process, and that attending meetings is the criterion Harald> that we've found that is easy to manage and may have some correlation. "may have some correlation" is an accurate assessment -- and by the way, does not contradict: Dave> The problem with a criterion of meeting attendance is that it has a weak Dave> correlation with knowing anything about the job of managing the IETF. In point of fact, the working group discussion has not made much of an effort to reconcile the clear and serious disparity between the nature of the current criterion and its lack of strong correlation with the desired knowledge. >> Avri> John Klensin ...worried about the "don't volunteer" folk self >> Avri> selecting out in favor of the ax grinders. Harald> the purpose I saw in adding this to the oral tradition was to make it clear Harald> what kind of people we *want* on the nomcom I thought the purpose was to show the weakness in the underlying basis for the current criterion and the underlying weakness with trying to remedy that weakness by relying on self-selection. d/ -- Dave Brandenburg InternetWorking t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jan 5 14:35:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900M04ADFYD@eListX.com> (original mail from harald@alvestrand.no); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:34:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900M01ADEYB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:34:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900M01ADEYA@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:34:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (nat.alvestrand.no [217.13.28.204]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8900GF8ADD52@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:34:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no [192.168.1.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D57162207; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 20:31:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 20:31:55 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: criteria for nomcom participation In-reply-to: <2685954826.20030105081610@brandenburg.com> To: Dave Crocker Cc: ietf-nomcom Message-id: <225000000.1041795115@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-disposition: inline References: <3DEBDA7B.3090502@acm.org> <8349281342.20030104220457@brandenburg.com> <220480000.1041776911@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <2685954826.20030105081610@brandenburg.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: --On s=F8ndag, januar 05, 2003 08:16:10 -0800 Dave Crocker =20 wrote: > Dave, > > Sunday, January 5, 2003, 6:28:31 AM, you wrote: > Harald> 1) do you have a specific suggestion, or are you just theor= izing > about the Harald> boundaries of the problem space? > > Sorry. I thought my note was rather explicit about making a suggest= ion. > Please tell me in what way: > > Dave> If we want to ensure that nomcom has participation by people = who > know about Dave> IETF processes, then we need to ensure that it has > participation by people Dave> who have been directly involved in th= e > administrative process. That means Dave> chairs, editors, (former) = ADs > and (former) IAB members. > Dave> > Dave> Such a pool of potential participaants is too small -- and to= o > select -- to Dave> be adequate for the entire membership of nomcom.= That > is the reason for Dave> suggesting filling some nomcom slots -- cho= ose a > percentage: 25%, 33%, 40%, Dave> 50%? -- from a pool of those who h= ave > held formal positions and another pool Dave> of those who have a re= cent > attendance record, to fill the remaining nomcom Dave> slots. > > is not clear as a suggestion. well... you have a range of alternative percentages, and a range of p= eople,=20 some of which may not be entirely clear; how do you determine who has= been=20 editors? those who have their names end up on the front page of an RF= C,=20 those who have held the pen at some point according to the working gr= oup=20 chairs, or some other criterion? do you envision a time limit to the IAB/IESG criterion, or does Russ = Hobby=20 (Applications AD in 1988) still qualify under this criterion? (no idea what he does now - simply the oldest AD I could find...) since we are now 6 months after the charter milestone for submission = to the=20 IESG of the finished document, and appear to have rough consensus on = most=20 of the rest of the document, it would seem like a good idea to make a= =20 *specific* suggestion (as in "put the following text in section 4 bul= let=20 15"). > Harald> 2) the rough consensus so far seems to be that the criterio= n we > want is Harald> knowledge of the IETF process, and that attending > meetings is the criterion Harald> that we've found that is easy to > manage and may have some correlation. > > "may have some correlation" is an accurate assessment -- and by the= way, > does not contradict: > > Dave> The problem with a criterion of meeting attendance is that it= has a > weak Dave> correlation with knowing anything about the job of manag= ing > the IETF. > > In point of fact, the working group discussion has not made much of= an > effort to reconcile the clear and serious disparity between the nat= ure of > the current criterion and its lack of strong correlation with the d= esired > knowledge. My impression of the working group discussion is that it has observed= the=20 quality of the correlation, and decided not to change it. >>> Avri> John Klensin ...worried about the "don't volunteer" folk se= lf >>> Avri> selecting out in favor of the ax grinders. > > Harald> the purpose I saw in adding this to the oral tradition was = to > make it clear what kind of people we *want* on the nomcom > > I thought the purpose was to show the weakness in the underlying ba= sis for > the current criterion and the underlying weakness with trying to re= medy > that weakness by relying on self-selection. as you say - those two sentences are not contradictory. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jan 5 17:45:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900404IX7AA@eListX.com> (original mail from dhc@dcrocker.net); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 17:39:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900401IX6A8@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 17:39:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900401IX6A7@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 17:39:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H890040BIX58D@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 17:39:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05819; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:36:16 -0800 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:35:22 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: criteria for nomcom participation In-reply-to: <225000000.1041795115@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: Dave Crocker , ietf-nomcom Message-id: <9213247599.20030105143522@brandenburg.com> Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62 Christmas Edition) Personal Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3DEBDA7B.3090502@acm.org> <8349281342.20030104220457@brandenburg.com> <220480000.1041776911@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <2685954826.20030105081610@brandenburg.com> <225000000.1041795115@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Folks, Harald> well... you have a range of alternative percentages, and a range of people, If the group is willing to agree that an initial drawing from a pool of volunteers who have held process-related positions, and a second pool of all remaining volunteers, then haggling over the details would be quite secondary, in my view. That is, I am much more concerned about our model than I am about the particular percentages or criteria within category. However, yes it can be easier to get to agreement on the principal by haggling those details. So here is something specific to haggle about: One-third of nomcom voting members shall be qualified nomcom voting volunteers who have had recent, direct involvement with IETF process, and two-thirds shall be composed of all nomcom qualified nomcom volunteers who were not selected as "process-knowledgeable experts". "Recent experience" is defined by having held an official position as working group chair, or working group document editor, or area director or IAB member, for a period of at least one year, within the last 6 years. "Qualified nomcom voting volunteers" .... <> d/ -- Dave Brandenburg InternetWorking t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jan 5 18:45:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900504LMRX7@eListX.com> (original mail from dperkins@dsperkins.com) ; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 18:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900501LMRX5@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 18:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900501LMRX4@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 18:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from postman.bayarea.net (postman.BAYAREA.NET [205.219.84.13]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8900457LMQ8D@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 18:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from host.dsperkins.com (shell4.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.82.1]) by postman.bayarea.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA58370; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 15:34:59 -0800 (PST envelope-from dperkins@dsperkins.com) Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 15:33:23 -0800 From: "David T. Perkins" Subject: Re: criteria for nomcom participation In-reply-to: <9213247599.20030105143522@brandenburg.com> X-Sender: dperkins@127.0.0.1 To: Dave Crocker Cc: ietf-nomcom Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030105151837.02bff9a0@127.0.0.1> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <225000000.1041795115@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <3DEBDA7B.3090502@acm.org> <8349281342.20030104220457@brandenburg.com> <220480000.1041776911@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <2685954826.20030105081610@brandenburg.com> <225000000.1041795115@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: HI, I'm worried that with this proposal that the nomcom will be too much influenced by the insiders, which I believe is not a good thing. And, given the presentations at the last IETF meeting, I would really want the noncom to choose IESG candidates that would focus on improving the process and not keeping it the same. Also, I would like to see IESG (and IAB) members that were committed to outreach programs to: 1) get greater direct monetary support by both vendors and users to the IETF via ISOC 2) get support for a coordinated program for demonstration of interoperation and clean up of RFCs to reflect the results. (There are way too many "protocol designers" participating in the IETF, and way too few "protocol testers".) PS Would I meet DHC's test? No, but I believe I understand the IETF process quite well. And I bet there are others with the same qualifications. At 02:35 PM 1/5/2003 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: >Folks, > >Harald> well... you have a range of alternative percentages, and a range of people, > >If the group is willing to agree that an initial drawing from a pool of >volunteers who have held process-related positions, and a second pool of all >remaining volunteers, then haggling over the details would be quite >secondary, in my view. > >That is, I am much more concerned about our model than I am about the >particular percentages or criteria within category. > >However, yes it can be easier to get to agreement on the principal by >haggling those details. So here is something specific to haggle about: > > One-third of nomcom voting members shall be qualified nomcom > voting volunteers who have had recent, direct involvement with > IETF process, and two-thirds shall be composed of all nomcom > qualified nomcom volunteers who were not selected as > "process-knowledgeable experts". > > "Recent experience" is defined by having held an official position > as working group chair, or working group document editor, or area > director or IAB member, for a period of at least one year, within > the last 6 years. > > "Qualified nomcom voting volunteers" .... < now have, except that attendance rate is increased, per the > group's recent discussion.>> >d/ Regards, /david t. perkins From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jan 6 00:05:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8A00E020BQ8J@eListX.com> (original mail from ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:55:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900D01ZL0SV@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:39:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900D01ZL0SU@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com) ; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:39:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900D04ZKZSR@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:38:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900D01ZKZSP@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:38:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8900D01ZKZSO@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:38:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from pop-3.dnv.wideopenwest.com (gtwy.nap.wideopenwest.com [64.233.207.11]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8900D2NZKY9Q@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:38:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from thoth.ir.bbn.com (d53-203-209.clv.wideopenwest.com [64.53.209.203]) by pop-3.dnv.wideopenwest.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h064eSm29979; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 22:40:28 -0600 Received: from thoth.ir.bbn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thoth.ir.bbn.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h064ZnR2000862; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:35:56 -0500 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:35:49 -0500 From: Mark Allman Subject: Re: criteria for nomcom participation In-reply-to: <225000000.1041795115@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> Sender: mallman@thoth.ir.bbn.com To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: Dave Crocker , ietf-nomcom Reply-to: mallman@grc.nasa.gov Message-id: <200301060435.h064ZnR2000862@thoth.ir.bbn.com> Organization: BBN Technologies/NASA GRC Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN Song-of-the-Day: Car Phone X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=7.5 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2 version=2.31 X-Spam-Level: X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.1(snapshot 20020919) (pop-3.dnv.wideopenwest.com) List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: > well... you have a range of alternative percentages, and a range > of people, some of which may not be entirely clear; I, personally, still like Dave's notion of the makeup of the nomcom (with more experience than currently required) -- even though I think that is against consensus at this point. But, I'll throw out some specifics... * no sitting member of the IESG or IAB (including those stepping down) * 6 members of nomcom come from people who: are former members of the IAB or IESG with <= 4 years between their service and nomcom selection, or have their name on an IETF WG RFC published in the last 3 years (or, currently in the RFC Editor's queue, I suppose), or chaired (or co-chaired) a WG that has produced at least one RFC (includes current chairs and chairs whose WGs ended <= 3 years ago) * 4 members that do not necessarily meet the above criteria, but have been to 3 out of the last 5 meetings While it is more complicated than the current system, I think it is still way tractable (especially if people have to list their qualifications when they volunteer -- hence, the facts they give just need verified). (And, the numbers can be adjusted... Harald asked for specifics, so I sort of threw these together...) allman -- Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/ From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jan 6 00:25:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8A00F041AW1C@eListX.com> (original mail from matt.holdrege@verizon.net) ; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 00:16:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8A00F011AV1A@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 06 Jan 2003 00:16:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8A00F011AV19@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 06 Jan 2003 00:16:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from pop016.verizon.net (pop016pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.173]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8A00D491AU9N@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 00:16:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from MattXP.verizon.net ([67.225.108.121]) by pop016.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.20 201-253-122-126-120-20021101) with ESMTP id <20030106051333.QJYQ20431.pop016.verizon.net@MattXP.verizon.net> for ; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:13:33 -0600 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 21:13:24 -0800 From: Matt Holdrege Subject: Re: criteria for nomcom participation In-reply-to: <200301060435.h064ZnR2000862@thoth.ir.bbn.com> X-Sender: res06gzk@incoming.verizon.net To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030105210730.0259c078@localhost> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at pop016.verizon.net from [67.225.108.121] at Sun, 5 Jan 2003 23:13:32 -0600 References: <225000000.1041795115@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: If I may offer up recent personal experience... I was on the previous nomcom. At that time, I was a WG Chair and quite involved in many WG's across several areas. I knew the IESG and IAB members fairly well and I knew most of the candidates. In short, I felt fully qualified to be on the nomcom. Since then, unemployment has kept me from attending the last two IETF's. Although I'm on several mailing lists, I really don't feel that I'm in touch with what's going on in the IESG and IAB. If I were part of nomcom now, I wouldn't feel nearly as qualified as I think I should be. I used to be of the opinion that some people who don't attend IETF's could help out nomcom. Now I'm not so sure. Just my 2 cents. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jan 6 01:15:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8A00H043WN15@eListX.com> (original mail from jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com) ; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 01:12:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8A00H013WM13@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 06 Jan 2003 01:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8A00H013WM12@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 06 Jan 2003 01:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8A00DBQ3WL9Q@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 01:12:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.157.124.21.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([64.157.124.21] helo=ix.netcom.com) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18VQSK-0006gm-00; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 01:09:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 00:11:58 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Subject: Re: criteria for nomcom participation To: Matt Holdrege Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3E193A4E.35AC4F20@ix.netcom.com> Organization: INEGroup Spokesman MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <225000000.1041795115@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <5.1.0.14.2.20030105210730.0259c078@localhost> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Matt and all, Attending IETF meeting as criterion for being a candidate has been trotted out several times as a precursor to eliminating good potential candidates. It is basically a canard of ridiculous proportions and simply just a method used to discourage and degrade various long time IETF participants. Given that Dave Crocker brought it up AGAIN on this forum simply shows why the IETF is being viewed as less than adequate by the current Bush administration, amongst other reasons and that Andrew Card back in sept. spoke publicly about taking over the current IETF function. Of course Dave has gotten himself in trouble with the USG before during the old gTLD-MoU fiasco... Matt Holdrege wrote: > If I may offer up recent personal experience... > > I was on the previous nomcom. At that time, I was a WG Chair and quite > involved in many WG's across several areas. I knew the IESG and IAB members > fairly well and I knew most of the candidates. In short, I felt fully > qualified to be on the nomcom. > > Since then, unemployment has kept me from attending the last two IETF's. > Although I'm on several mailing lists, I really don't feel that I'm in > touch with what's going on in the IESG and IAB. If I were part of nomcom > now, I wouldn't feel nearly as qualified as I think I should be. > > I used to be of the opinion that some people who don't attend IETF's could > help out nomcom. Now I'm not so sure. > > Just my 2 cents. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jan 6 02:45:00 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8A00J047WJX9@eListX.com> (original mail from dhc@dcrocker.net); Mon, 06 Jan 2003 02:38:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8A00J017WJX7@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 06 Jan 2003 02:38:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H8A00J017WJX6@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 06 Jan 2003 02:38:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H8A00DNU7WI9Q@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 02:38:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA18979; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:35:53 -0800 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:14:47 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: criteria for nomcom participation In-reply-to: <200301060435.h064ZnR2000862@thoth.ir.bbn.com> To: Mark Allman Cc: ietf-nomcom Message-id: <8644410569.20030105231447@brandenburg.com> Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62 Christmas Edition) Personal Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <200301060435.h064ZnR2000862@thoth.ir.bbn.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Mark, Sunday, January 5, 2003, 8:35:49 PM, you wrote: Mark> * no sitting member of the IESG or IAB (including those stepping Mark> down) oh, sorry. right. that seemed so automatically true it did not occur to me to mention it. but, yes, it does need to be stated. Mark> * 6 members of nomcom come from people who: much too high a percentage. my original proposal was 50%, and I got feedback saying that that was too high. That's why I suggested 33% this time. With a nomcom of 10 voting members, that's 3 people certain to have recent, direct involvement in process. From my own experience on nomcom, I think that that is plenty to make sure that the experience is represented adequately.. d/ -- Dave Brandenburg InternetWorking t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jan 21 17:35:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300L04512CX@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:27:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300L01511CV@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:27:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300L01511CU@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:27:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from apocalypse.org (apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9300EIK511RV@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:27:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from acm.org (IDENT:1KXyZbtat7f0TQl6WnCbrHAAS1RMeYy0@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apocalypse.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0LMQrI04975 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:26:53 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:24:18 -0500 From: Avri Doria Subject: Update To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3E2DC892.5010403@acm.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 References: <225000000.1041795115@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <5.1.0.14.2.20030105210730.0259c078@localhost> <3E193A4E.35AC4F20@ix.netcom.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Hi, There has been some conversation of criteria for selecting NomCom volunteers on the list in the last month. From the conversation on this topic, I believe we have 3 voices in favor of a change from the current procedure of picking NomCom volunteers from among attendees and 3 voices against such a change. I do not believe that this constitutes a consensus for change and therefore believe that the the WG consensus is for a maintaining the practice of selecting the pool of NomCom volunteers from among meeting attendees. As for the change from the 2 out of 3 rule to the 3 out of 5 rule. There was sense of the room in Atlanta in favor of this change. This was reported in the minutes. Since that time there has been no discussion specifically on this on the list. I believe there may be consensus on this change, given that we are not recommending a more radical change to the selection pool. It would be good for anyone who has an opinion on changing the 2 out of 3 rule to a 3 out of 5 rule to let the list know their opinion. Finally, a new release of the I-D should be out shortly. Shortly after this is released, I would like call WG last call. So please prepare to review the next version of the draft. Thanks a. -- Avri Doria http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/ From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jan 21 18:05:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300M046CSL6@eListX.com> (original mail from david.putzolu@intel.com) ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:55:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300M016CRKW@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:55:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300M016CRKV@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:55:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from caduceus.fm.intel.com (fmr02.intel.com [192.55.52.25]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9300EM96CQRV@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from petasus.fm.intel.com (petasus.fm.intel.com [10.1.192.37]) by caduceus.fm.intel.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/d: outer.mc,v 1.51 2002/09/23 20:43:23 dmccart Exp $) with ESMTP id h0LMntN22437 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:49:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fmsmsxvs041.fm.intel.com (fmsmsxvs041.fm.intel.com [132.233.42.126]) by petasus.fm.intel.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/d: inner.mc,v 1.28 2003/01/13 19:44:39 dmccart Exp $) with SMTP id h0LMoV802547 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:50:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fmsmsx28.fm.intel.com ([132.233.42.28]) by fmsmsxvs041.fm.intel.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.11) with SMTP id M2003012114533007513 ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:53:30 -0800 Received: by fmsmsx28.fm.intel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:55:29 -0800 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:55:24 -0800 From: "Putzolu, David" Subject: RE: Update To: 'Avri Doria' , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: > It would be good for anyone who has an opinion on changing > the 2 out of 3 rule to a 3 out of 5 rule to let the list > know their opinion. Hi Avri. I am in favor of the 3/5 rule because I think it will result in a nomcom pool that has on average greater IETF experience. I also support the rule because it enables consistent contributors who happen to miss two IETFs in a three IETF period to still be represented in the nomcom. I am assuming the secretariat has or the necessary records available to support a 3/5 rule - has that been verified? Cheers, David Putzolu From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jan 21 18:15:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H93000046XV0I@eListX.com> (original mail from dee3@torque.pothole.com) ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H93000016XU0G@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H93000016XU0F@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.netbusters.com (netbusters.com [207.8.219.204]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9300J956XUQO@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by www.netbusters.com (Postfix, from userid 513) id 2BFD317EA; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.netbusters.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2910636EA; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:12 -0500 (EST) From: Donald Eastlake 3rd Subject: RE: Update In-reply-to: X-X-Sender: dee3@netbusters.com To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Cc: 'Avri Doria' Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: I also favor the 3 out of 5 rule. As the IETF grows larger and more diffuse, the socialization and learning time it takes for attendees to absorb the Tao of the IETF, on the average, grows. I believe a 3 out of 5 rules is needed to merely assure the same level of nomcom committee member we had 9 years ago with a 2 out of 3 rule then. Thanks, Donald ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Putzolu, David wrote: > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:55:24 -0800 > From: "Putzolu, David" > To: 'Avri Doria' , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com > Subject: RE: Update > > > It would be good for anyone who has an opinion on changing > > the 2 out of 3 rule to a 3 out of 5 rule to let the list > > know their opinion. > > Hi Avri. > > I am in favor of the 3/5 rule because I think it will result > in a nomcom pool that has on average greater IETF experience. > I also support the rule because it enables consistent contributors > who happen to miss two IETFs in a three IETF period to still be > represented in the nomcom. > > I am assuming the secretariat has or the necessary records available > to support a 3/5 rule - has that been verified? > > Cheers, > David Putzolu > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: > From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jan 21 18:35:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H930010481Z0S@eListX.com> (original mail from joel@stevecrocker.com) ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:32:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H930010181Y0Q@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:32:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H930010181Y0P@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:32:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from EXECDSL.COM (ns.execdsl.net [208.184.15.238]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9300L3F81YSX@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:32:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [63.113.114.131] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 4162435 for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:32:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:31:58 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: Update In-reply-to: <3E2DC892.5010403@acm.org> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@mail.stevecrocker.com To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030121183101.028a6e38@mail.stevecrocker.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii References: <225000000.1041795115@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <5.1.0.14.2.20030105210730.0259c078@localhost> <3E193A4E.35AC4F20@ix.netcom.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: I believe switching to 3 out of 5 instead of 2 out of 3 is good idea. While attendence is always a heuristic, I think this change will make it work somewhat better. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 05:24 PM 1/21/2003 -0500, Avri Doria wrote: >It would be good for anyone who has an opinion on changing >the 2 out of 3 rule to a 3 out of 5 rule to let the list >know their opinion. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jan 21 21:45:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300704GLL7S@eListX.com> (original mail from gih@telstra.net); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:36:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300701GLK7Q@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:36:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300701GLK7P@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:36:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from kahuna.telstra.net (kahuna.telstra.net [203.50.0.6]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9300LD5GLISS@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:36:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from gih505.telstra.net (rsdhcp13.telstra.net [203.50.0.207]) by kahuna.telstra.net (8.12.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0M2afMN009689; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:36:43 +1100 (EST envelope-from gih@telstra.net) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:00:08 +1100 From: Geoff Huston Subject: RE: Update In-reply-to: X-Sender: gih@kahuna.telstra.net To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Cc: 'Avri Doria' Message-id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030122125733.015e39e0@kahuna.telstra.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii References: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: On the 2/3 and 3/5 rule, it would be interesting to learn the numbers of individuals who would qualify under each criteria. It may be that the actual numbers are not so very different - or not. Is the data around, or could/should we request it from the Secretariat? Geoff From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jan 21 23:05:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300904KG5GF@eListX.com> (original mail from dee3@torque.pothole.com) ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:00:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300901KG4GD@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:00:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300901KG4GC@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:00:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.netbusters.com (netbusters.com [207.8.219.204]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9300JNFKG4QO@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:00:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by www.netbusters.com (Postfix, from userid 513) id 3A3E017E7; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:59:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.netbusters.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3530236EA; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:59:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:59:58 -0500 (EST) From: Donald Eastlake 3rd Subject: RE: Update In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20030122125733.015e39e0@kahuna.telstra.net> X-X-Sender: dee3@netbusters.com To: Geoff Huston Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: I thought we had already gotten these figures. Thanks, Donald ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Geoff Huston wrote: > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:00:08 +1100 > From: Geoff Huston > To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com > Cc: 'Avri Doria' > Subject: RE: Update > > On the 2/3 and 3/5 rule, it would be interesting to learn the numbers of > individuals who would qualify under each criteria. It may be that the > actual numbers are not so very different - or not. > > Is the data around, or could/should we request it from the Secretariat? > > Geoff From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jan 21 23:45:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300B04MIHJW@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@sm.luth.se); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:44:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300B01MIGJU@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:44:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300B01MIGJT@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:44:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from apocalypse.org (apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H93005CCMIFFO@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:44:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from sm.luth.se (IDENT:aykpIuRtINRPJOY/8dJ5N+s/6FYJzkpe@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apocalypse.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M4iUI05440 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:44:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:41:43 -0500 From: avri doria Subject: Re: Update To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3E2E2107.9030105@sm.luth.se> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030122125733.015e39e0@kahuna.telstra.net> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Geoff Huston wrote: > On the 2/3 and 3/5 rule, it would be interesting to learn the numbers of > individuals who would qualify under each criteria. It may be that the > actual numbers are not so very different - or not. > > Is the data around, or could/should we request it from the Secretariat? > > Geoff > From an Earlier message from Harald: > Numbers available for your benefit. > > Harlad > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > Date: tirsdag, november 26, 2002 10:54:17 -0500 > From: Steve Coya > To: harald@alvestrand.no > Subject: Re: [iesg-secretary #4341] Estimating size of volunteer pool for nomcom > > Your request #4341 was resolved by scoya: > > Hi Harald, > > Under the "2 out of last 3" rule, there were 1218 eligible > > Under the "3 out of the last 5", there were 1189 eligible From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jan 22 00:25:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300D04O8ENV@eListX.com> (original mail from gih@telstra.net); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:21:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300D01O8ENT@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:21:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300D01O8ENS@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:21:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from kahuna.telstra.net (kahuna.telstra.net [203.50.0.6]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H93005OTO8CFO@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:21:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from gih505.telstra.net (rsdhcp13.telstra.net [203.50.0.207]) by kahuna.telstra.net (8.12.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0M5LeML010225; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:21:42 +1100 (EST envelope-from gih@telstra.net) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:21:19 +1100 From: Geoff Huston Subject: Re: Update In-reply-to: <3E2E2107.9030105@sm.luth.se> X-Sender: gih@kahuna.telstra.net To: avri doria , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030122160631.015e4558@kahuna.telstra.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030122125733.015e39e0@kahuna.telstra.net> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Thank you - the difference of 29 does not strike me as being a major issue one way or the othjer, but on the side of inclusiveness I would favour the 3/5 recommendation. Geoff At 11:41 PM 1/21/2003 -0500, avri doria wrote: >Geoff Huston wrote: >>On the 2/3 and 3/5 rule, it would be interesting to learn the numbers of >>individuals who would qualify under each criteria. It may be that the >>actual numbers are not so very different - or not. >>Is the data around, or could/should we request it from the Secretariat? >> Geoff > > From an Earlier message from Harald: > >>Numbers available for your benefit. >> Harlad >>---------- Forwarded Message ---------- >>Date: tirsdag, november 26, 2002 10:54:17 -0500 >>From: Steve Coya >>To: harald@alvestrand.no >>Subject: Re: [iesg-secretary #4341] Estimating size of volunteer pool for >>nomcom >>Your request #4341 was resolved by scoya: >>Hi Harald, >>Under the "2 out of last 3" rule, there were 1218 eligible >>Under the "3 out of the last 5", there were 1189 eligible > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jan 22 02:55:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300H04UYSTM@eListX.com> (original mail from harald@alvestrand.no); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300H01UYSTK@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9300H01UYSTJ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (nat.alvestrand.no [217.13.28.204]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9300E88UYRJE@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no [192.168.1.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90895621B8; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:47:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:47:09 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Number of eligible people (RE: Update) In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20030122125733.015e39e0@kahuna.telstra.net> To: Geoff Huston , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Cc: 'Avri Doria' Message-id: <405780000.1043221629@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030122125733.015e39e0@kahuna.telstra.net> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: --On onsdag, januar 22, 2003 13:00:08 +1100 Geoff Huston wrote: > On the 2/3 and 3/5 rule, it would be interesting to learn the numbers of > individuals who would qualify under each criteria. It may be that the > actual numbers are not so very different - or not. > > Is the data around, or could/should we request it from the Secretariat? > I asked this of the secretariat during Atlanta week, and here is what they answered (dated Nov 26): ---------------------------------------- Hi Harald, Under the "2 out of last 3" rule, there were 1218 eligible Under the "3 out of the last 5", there were 1189 eligible Steve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand >To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org >Subject: Estimating size of volunteer pool for nomcom Hi, the secretariat was able to tell us how many people were eligible for nomcom duty under the "2 out of last 3" rule. (I think it was around 1400). Can the secretariat work out how many would be eligible if the rule was "3 out of the last 5"? From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jan 22 04:45:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400K0405PUL@eListX.com> (original mail from brian@hursley.ibm.com) ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:39:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400K0105OUJ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:39:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400K0105OUI@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:39:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from d12lmsgate-5.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate-5.de.ibm.com [194.196.100.238]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9400F8905NQZ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:39:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from d12relay02.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.de.ibm.com [9.165.215.23]) by d12lmsgate-5.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h0M9dEVx108906 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:39:14 +0100 Received: from etzel.zurich.ibm.com (etzel.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.64.140]) by d12relay02.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with SMTP id h0M9dDBh255090 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:39:13 +0100 Received: from dhcp23-27.zurich.ibm.com by etzel.zurich.ibm.com (AIX 4.3/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA36100 from ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:39:12 +0100 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:38:31 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: Update To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3E2E6697.F2CFB42D@hursley.ibm.com> Organization: IBM MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030122125733.015e39e0@kahuna.telstra.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030122160631.015e4558@kahuna.telstra.net> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: I concur Brian Geoff Huston wrote: > > Thank you - the difference of 29 does not strike me as being > a major issue one way or the othjer, but on the side of > inclusiveness I would favour the 3/5 recommendation. > > Geoff > > At 11:41 PM 1/21/2003 -0500, avri doria wrote: > > >Geoff Huston wrote: > >>On the 2/3 and 3/5 rule, it would be interesting to learn the numbers of > >>individuals who would qualify under each criteria. It may be that the > >>actual numbers are not so very different - or not. > >>Is the data around, or could/should we request it from the Secretariat? > >> Geoff > > > > From an Earlier message from Harald: > > > >>Numbers available for your benefit. > >> Harlad > >>---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > >>Date: tirsdag, november 26, 2002 10:54:17 -0500 > >>From: Steve Coya > >>To: harald@alvestrand.no > >>Subject: Re: [iesg-secretary #4341] Estimating size of volunteer pool for > >>nomcom > >>Your request #4341 was resolved by scoya: > >>Hi Harald, > >>Under the "2 out of last 3" rule, there were 1218 eligible > >>Under the "3 out of the last 5", there were 1189 eligible From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jan 22 05:05:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400L0419CGW@eListX.com> (original mail from bwijnen@lucent.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:03:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400L0119BGU@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:03:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400L0119BGT@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (hoemail1.lucent.com [192.11.226.161]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9400F9719BQZ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.2/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h0MA2v615109 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:03:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:02:56 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:02:50 +0100 From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Subject: RE: Number of eligible people (RE: Update) To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155BAE118@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: > I asked this of the secretariat during Atlanta week, and here > is what they answered (dated Nov 26): > ---------------------------------------- > Hi Harald, > > Under the "2 out of last 3" rule, there were 1218 eligible > > Under the "3 out of the last 5", there were 1189 eligible > > So then to me, it seems as if changing the rules would not really change much, would it? Bert From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jan 22 07:35:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H940020483MDX@eListX.com> (original mail from tytso@thunk.org); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:30:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H940020183LDV@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:30:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H940020183LDU@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:30:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from thunker.thunk.org (thunk.org [140.239.227.29]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9400FF683LQZ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:30:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from [12.154.248.30] (helo=think.thunk.org) by thunker.thunk.org with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18bK1l-0005pT-00; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:30:45 -0500 Received: from tytso by think.thunk.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18bK1G-0000YG-00; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:30:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:30:14 -0500 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: Update In-reply-to: <3E2E6697.F2CFB42D@hursley.ibm.com> To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <20030122123013.GA1958@think.thunk.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030122125733.015e39e0@kahuna.telstra.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030122160631.015e4558@kahuna.telstra.net> <3E2E6697.F2CFB42D@hursley.ibm.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:38:31AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I concur > Brian > > Geoff Huston wrote: > > > > Thank you - the difference of 29 does not strike me as being > > a major issue one way or the othjer, but on the side of > > inclusiveness I would favour the 3/5 recommendation. Well, it looks like going to 3/5 would slightly *decrease* inclusiveness, at least qualitatively, but I'm not sure it makes that much difference. One thing to consider that 3/5 allows is that someone who has regularly attends meetings, but who has missed the two most recent, consecutive meetings would still be elible to serve. On the other hand, it does mean that someone who just attended two meetings for the time would not qualify. Whether someone who had just attend for two meetings would bother to volunteer is another question. Anyway, life is filled with tradeoffs. I'm not entirely convinced that 3/5 is significantly better, but I'm not convinced its significantly worse, either. - Ted From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jan 22 08:05:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H94003049JVFM@eListX.com> (original mail from dee3@torque.pothole.com) ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:02:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H94003019JVFK@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:02:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H94003019JVFJ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:02:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.netbusters.com (netbusters.com [207.8.219.204]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9400FGT9JUQZ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:02:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by www.netbusters.com (Postfix, from userid 513) id 944FE17DE; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:02:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.netbusters.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E4336EA for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:02:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:02:11 -0500 (EST) From: Donald Eastlake 3rd Subject: RE: Number of eligible people (RE: Update) In-reply-to: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155BAE118@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> X-X-Sender: dee3@netbusters.com To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: We really don't know exactly what the overlap is between these two numbers. Certainly neither is a subset of the other. The 3 out of 5 rules requires people with more experience and permits them even if they happen to have missed the last two meetings or the last meeting and the meeting two before that. If attendence patterns had been odd enough, as might happen if there were three IETF meetings a popular North American locations followed by two at overseas locations that were expensive to readh from NA (I know that's not very plausible), you could have the 3 of 5 pool actually be larger than the 2 of 3 pool. So what? They would still be, in my opinion, better qualified people. That's the whole point of the change. To get a somewhat more experienced nomcom. Thanks, Donald ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:02:50 +0100 > From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" > To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand , > ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com > Subject: RE: Number of eligible people (RE: Update) > > > I asked this of the secretariat during Atlanta week, and here > > is what they answered (dated Nov 26): > > ---------------------------------------- > > Hi Harald, > > > > Under the "2 out of last 3" rule, there were 1218 eligible > > > > Under the "3 out of the last 5", there were 1189 eligible > > > > > So then to me, it seems as if changing the rules would not > really change much, would it? > > Bert > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: > From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jan 22 08:55:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400504BV7AH@eListX.com> (original mail from swb@employees.org); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:52:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400501BV6AB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:52:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400501BV6AA@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:52:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.163.11]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H940042CBV5R3@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:52:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mira-sjc5-a.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-a.cisco.com [171.71.163.34]) by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0MDqAFp005181 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com ([10.21.81.212]) by mira-sjc5-a.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with SMTP id ADS19483; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 05:41:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by cisco.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:52:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:52:09 -0500 From: Scott W Brim Subject: Re: Number of eligible people (RE: Update) In-reply-to: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155BAE118@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Mail-followup-to: Scott W Brim , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <20030122135208.GC744@SBRIM-W2K1> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155BAE118@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 11:02:50AM +0100, Bert allegedly wrote: > > I asked this of the secretariat during Atlanta week, and here > > is what they answered (dated Nov 26): > > ---------------------------------------- > > Hi Harald, > > > > Under the "2 out of last 3" rule, there were 1218 eligible > > > > Under the "3 out of the last 5", there were 1189 eligible > > > > > So then to me, it seems as if changing the rules would not > really change much, would it? It changes the experience you get. I don't know how significant the change is, but the eligible group would lean some amount toward those who had a longer-term relationship with the IETF, even if that relationship was intermittent. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jan 22 09:55:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400704EBWEG@eListX.com> (original mail from dhc@dcrocker.net); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400701EBWEE@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400701EBWED@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H940049WEBVR4@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:45:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from msfc03-dai-tx-57-22.rasserver.net (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04424 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:45:06 -0800 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:24:59 -0600 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Number of eligible people (RE: Update) In-reply-to: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155BAE118@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <11347842273.20030122072459@brandenburg.com> Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/4) Personal Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155BAE118@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: WBB> So then to me, it seems as if changing the rules would not WBB> really change much, would it? you are correct. whatever it is that people think needs fixing, this won't do it. d/ -- Dave Brandenburg InternetWorking t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jan 22 11:15:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400B04ID70S@eListX.com> (original mail from mallman@guns.lerc.nasa.gov) ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:12:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400B01ID70Q@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.eListX.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:12:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400B01ID60P@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.eListX.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:12:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from seraph3.grc.nasa.gov (seraph3.grc.nasa.gov [128.156.10.12]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H94004NGID6R4@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:12:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by seraph3.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ADE86BA4C for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:12:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from guns.lerc.nasa.gov (guns.lerc.nasa.gov [139.88.87.35]) by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC 8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h0MGCYXi023216; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:12:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from guns.lerc.nasa.gov (localhost.lerc.nasa.gov [127.0.0.1]) by guns.lerc.nasa.gov with ESMTP (NASA LeRC 8.7.4.1/2.01-local) id LAA60099; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:12:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:12:34 -0500 From: Mark Allman Subject: Re: Update In-reply-to: <3E2E2107.9030105@sm.luth.se> Sender: mallman@guns.lerc.nasa.gov To: avri doria Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Reply-to: mallman@grc.nasa.gov Message-id: <200301221612.LAA60099@guns.lerc.nasa.gov> Organization: BBN Technologies/NASA GRC Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN Song-of-the-Day: Lawyers, Guns and Money List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: > > Under the "2 out of last 3" rule, there were 1218 eligible > > > > Under the "3 out of the last 5", there were 1189 eligible Is it hard for the secratariet to determine these numbers? It might be nice to see a wider range of values plugged in... 3 of 6 or 4 of 7 or 5 of 8 or whatever. From the above it doesn't seem to me to matter much one way or the other -- but, I'd go with 3 of 5 just to ensure a little more experience. allman -- Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/ From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jan 22 17:25:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400604Z93PQ@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@sm.luth.se); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400601Z93PO@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9400601Z93PN@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from apocalypse.org (apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H940046DZ92T1@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:17:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from sm.luth.se (IDENT:5wDtMUde4fTMcZLcneFzI8olSDCOnvIx@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apocalypse.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0MMHJI28219 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:17:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:14:28 -0500 From: avri doria Subject: Re: Update To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3E2F17C4.9010004@sm.luth.se> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 References: <200301221612.LAA60099@guns.lerc.nasa.gov> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Hi, I am not sure these numbers being close tells us much about who is on the list. I.e. just because the numbers are close, it does not mean that the same people are on the lists. I would be curious to know how many names were common to both lists. a. Mark Allman wrote: >>>Under the "2 out of last 3" rule, there were 1218 eligible >>> >>>Under the "3 out of the last 5", there were 1189 eligible >> > > > > Is it hard for the secratariet to determine these numbers? It might > be nice to see a wider range of values plugged in... 3 of 6 or 4 of > 7 or 5 of 8 or whatever. > > From the above it doesn't seem to me to matter much one way or the > other -- but, I'd go with 3 of 5 just to ensure a little more > experience. > > allman > > > -- > Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/ -- Avri Doria http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/ From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jan 22 23:35:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9500K02G9QFE@eListX.com> (original mail from ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:25:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9500K01FUQ9H@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9500K01FUQ9G@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com) ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9500K04FUQ9D@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9500K01FUP9B@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9500K01FUP9A@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:16:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from pop-4.dnv.wideopenwest.com (gtwy.nap.wideopenwest.com [64.233.207.11]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9500J13FUPZ5@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:16:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from thoth.ir.bbn.com (d53-203-209.clv.wideopenwest.com [64.53.209.203]) by pop-4.dnv.wideopenwest.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0N4QLk27048; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:26:21 -0600 Received: from thoth.ir.bbn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thoth.ir.bbn.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0N4InR2010216; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:18:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:18:49 -0500 From: Mark Allman Subject: Re: Update In-reply-to: <3E2F17C4.9010004@sm.luth.se> Sender: mallman@thoth.ir.bbn.com To: avri doria Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Reply-to: mallman@grc.nasa.gov Message-id: <200301230418.h0N4InR2010216@thoth.ir.bbn.com> Organization: BBN Technologies/NASA GRC Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN Song-of-the-Day: Lawyers, Guns and Money X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=7.5 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2 version=2.31 X-Spam-Level: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: > I am not sure these numbers being close tells us much about who is > on the list. I.e. just because the numbers are close, it does > not mean that the same people are on the lists. I would be > curious to know how many names were common to both lists. A little exercise... * we have a history of the last 5 meetings; from this we can determine someone's meeting attendance pattern * so, there are 2^5 or 32 different patterns * 13 of the patterns yield no eligibility under either the "3 of 5" or "2 of last 3" criteria * 13 of the patterns yield eligibility for nomcom under either "3 of 5" or "2 of last 3" * 3 of the patterns yield eligibility if using "2 of 3" but no eligibility if using "3 of 5" * 3 of the patterns yield eligibility if using "3 of 5" but no eligibility if using "2 of 3" * that is, 16 patterns yield eligibility for "3 of 5" and 16 patterns yield eligibility for "2 of 3"; and there is significant overlap in those two sets (nearly 70%) Now assume that attendees fall into the 19 patterns that yield eligibility under one of the constraints fairly evenly. We would expect to see the pool size be roughly equivalent under either "2 of 3" or "3 of 5". And, that is what Harald showed us. So, at least in terms of back-of-the-envelope thinking the above may be roughly accurate enough as a model to think about. So, by choosing "3 of 5" what we are really saying is that we like: + to ensure that someone has participated in at least a year's worth of meetings, as opposed to 2 meetings + we think the people fitting in the 3 patterns in the "3 of 5" set and not the "2 of 3" are more useful in nomcom than the set of people fitting in one of the 3 patterns that pass the "2 of 3" rule and not the "3 of 5" rule My own opinion is that "3 of 5" is better than "2 of 3" for the two above reasons (especially the min). But, the difference is in 15% of the pool -- and, I don't think that matters terribly much in the end. Even if you go to something like "4 of 8" you still see significant overlap with the "2 of last 3" group (again roughly 70%). So, maybe we are sweating the small stuff here. I have said before that I think we should do something fairly different. But, that has zero consensus. That's fine. So, maybe it is time to Just Pick Some "M of N" - with the knowledge that what we're really setting is the lower bound (i.e., how many meetings until eligible) rather than really gauging one's attendance record over time. allman -- Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/ From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jan 23 03:35:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9500604RJODD@eListX.com> (original mail from harald@alvestrand.no); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:28:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9500601RJODB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:28:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9500601RJODA@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:28:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (nat.alvestrand.no [217.13.28.204]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H95003AXRJN1T@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:28:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no [192.168.1.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14DA162204; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:28:27 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:28:27 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: Update In-reply-to: <200301230418.h0N4InR2010216@thoth.ir.bbn.com> To: mallman@grc.nasa.gov Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <212790000.1043310507@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline References: <200301230418.h0N4InR2010216@thoth.ir.bbn.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: --On onsdag, januar 22, 2003 23:18:49 -0500 Mark Allman wrote: > + we think the people fitting in the 3 patterns in the "3 of 5" > set and not the "2 of 3" are more useful in nomcom than the set > of people fitting in one of the 3 patterns that pass the "2 of > 3" rule and not the "3 of 5" rule Just thinking about the last 5 meetings before the selection of the current nomcom... Yokohama, Minneapolis(02), Salt Lake City, London, Minneapolis(01). The patterns that fit 2 out of 3, but not 3 out of 5, are: - Yokohama + Minneapolis - Yokohama + Salt Lake City - Minneapolis + Salt Lake City In all 3 cases, no other attendance since San Diego (if ever). The patterns that fit 3 out of 5 but not 2 out of 3 are: - Yokohama + London + Minneapolis(01) - Minneapolis(02) + London + Minneapolis(01) - Salt Lake City + London + Minneapolis(01) > My own opinion is that "3 of 5" is better than "2 of 3" for the two > above reasons (especially the min). But, the difference is in 15% > of the pool -- and, I don't think that matters terribly much in the > end. Even if you go to something like "4 of 8" you still see > significant overlap with the "2 of last 3" group (again roughly > 70%). > > So, maybe we are sweating the small stuff here. I have said before > that I think we should do something fairly different. But, that has > zero consensus. That's fine. So, maybe it is time to Just Pick > Some "M of N" - with the knowledge that what we're really setting is > the lower bound (i.e., how many meetings until eligible) rather than > really gauging one's attendance record over time. I think we're sweating the small stuff. But I think it's a marginal improvement, so worth doing. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jan 23 09:55:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600J049B1N1@eListX.com> (original mail from dallan@nortelnetworks.com) ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:52:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600J019B0MX@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:52:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600J019B0MW@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:52:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com [47.129.242.157]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9600H5J9AZVH@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:52:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h0NEq2E24236 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:52:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:52:00 -0500 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:52:00 -0500 From: David Allan Subject: RE: Update To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_C5UYpIdFrlpR47JnqC0krg)" List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --Boundary_(ID_C5UYpIdFrlpR47JnqC0krg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 3 out of 5 makes makes more sense to me. Raises the minimum experience floor a bit without being too strict. cheers Dave --Boundary_(ID_C5UYpIdFrlpR47JnqC0krg) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 RE: Update

3 out of 5 makes makes more sense to me. Raises the minimum experience floor a bit without being too strict.

cheers
Dave

--Boundary_(ID_C5UYpIdFrlpR47JnqC0krg)-- From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jan 23 11:15:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600004CXJ3D@eListX.com> (original mail from dhc@dcrocker.net); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:10:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600001CXJ3B@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:10:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600001CXI3A@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:10:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9600HGTCXHVH@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:10:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from BBFUJIP (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA31745; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:10:02 -0800 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:29:01 -0600 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Update In-reply-to: <212790000.1043310507@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: mallman@grc.nasa.gov, ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <528984587.20030123082901@brandenburg.com> Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/4) Personal Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <200301230418.h0N4InR2010216@thoth.ir.bbn.com> <212790000.1043310507@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Harald, Thursday, January 23, 2003, 2:28:27 AM, you wrote: HTA> I think we're sweating the small stuff. But I think it's a marginal HTA> improvement, so worth doing. In contrast with the theoretical analysis, the empirical numbers we have been given show no serious difference. So what, exactly, do you believe the improvement to be, and what is the basis for the belief? d/ -- Dave Brandenburg InternetWorking t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jan 23 11:45:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600104E9OND@eListX.com> (original mail from harald@alvestrand.no); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:39:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600101E9NN9@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600101E9NN7@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (nat.alvestrand.no [217.13.28.204]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9600HL9E9MVI@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no [192.168.1.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B6D862204; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:39:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:39:15 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: Update In-reply-to: <528984587.20030123082901@brandenburg.com> To: Dave Crocker Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <357940000.1043339955@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline References: <200301230418.h0N4InR2010216@thoth.ir.bbn.com> <212790000.1043310507@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <528984587.20030123082901@brandenburg.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: --On torsdag, januar 23, 2003 08:29:01 -0600 Dave Crocker wrote: > Harald, > > Thursday, January 23, 2003, 2:28:27 AM, you wrote: > HTA> I think we're sweating the small stuff. But I think it's a marginal > HTA> improvement, so worth doing. > > In contrast with the theoretical analysis, the empirical numbers we > have been given show no serious difference. No serious difference in the *number* of eligible people. Which addressed the concern that some had that the pool would shrink too much, but tell us nothing about who those people are. > So what, exactly, do you believe the improvement to be, and what is > the basis for the belief? as others have said - I believe the people who have attended 3 IETFs are on average more qualified to be on the nomcom than people who have attended 2 IETFs. Harald From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jan 23 11:55:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600204ENL5T@eListX.com> (original mail from dhc@dcrocker.net); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:47:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600201ENK5R@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:47:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600201ENK5Q@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:47:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9600HNFENJVH@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:47:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from BBFUJIP (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01809; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:47:17 -0800 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:47:39 -0600 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Update In-reply-to: <357940000.1043339955@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: Dave Crocker , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <12137301717.20030123104739@brandenburg.com> Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/4) Personal Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <200301230418.h0N4InR2010216@thoth.ir.bbn.com> <212790000.1043310507@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <528984587.20030123082901@brandenburg.com> <357940000.1043339955@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Harald, Thursday, January 23, 2003, 10:39:15 AM, you wrote: >> In contrast with the theoretical analysis, the empirical numbers we >> have been given show no serious difference. HTA> No serious difference in the *number* of eligible people. HTA> Which addressed the concern that some had that the pool would shrink too HTA> much, but tell us nothing about who those people are. ok. at the least that means that we do not have any basis that the experience base is signficantly different. hence it means that there is no basis that the pool of nomcom participants is better (or worse). >> So what, exactly, do you believe the improvement to be, and what is >> the basis for the belief? HTA> as others have said - I believe the people who have attended 3 IETFs are on HTA> average more qualified to be on the nomcom than people who have attended 2 HTA> IETFs. others have said many things. others have said that experience with ietf process is different from showing up at meetings and *maybe* attending working group sessions. d/ -- Dave Brandenburg InternetWorking t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jan 23 12:15:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600304FHQPR@eListX.com> (original mail from joel@stevecrocker.com) ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:05:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600301FHQPP@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:05:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600301FHPPO@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:05:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from EXECDSL.COM (ns.execdsl.net [208.184.15.238]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H9600309FHPOB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:05:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from [63.113.114.131] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 4171270 for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:05:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:05:18 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: Update In-reply-to: <12137301717.20030123104739@brandenburg.com> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@mail.stevecrocker.com To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030123120206.0274d068@mail.stevecrocker.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii References: <357940000.1043339955@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <200301230418.h0N4InR2010216@thoth.ir.bbn.com> <212790000.1043310507@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <528984587.20030123082901@brandenburg.com> <357940000.1043339955@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Actually Dave, we do have one piece of evidence that the experience base is different. The old rule guaranteed that the person had been to two meetings. The new rule guarantees that the person has been to three meetings. (I don't care whether in the most recent data sample all of the 2 out of 3 people had actually attended 5 meetings. The rules change still shifts the base assumptions one can make about a nomcom participant.) Most of us believe that this helps the chances of the nomcom participant being better. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 10:47 AM 1/23/2003 -0600, Dave Crocker wrote: >Thursday, January 23, 2003, 10:39:15 AM, you wrote: > >> In contrast with the theoretical analysis, the empirical numbers we > >> have been given show no serious difference. > >HTA> No serious difference in the *number* of eligible people. >HTA> Which addressed the concern that some had that the pool would shrink too >HTA> much, but tell us nothing about who those people are. > >ok. at the least that means that we do not have any basis that the >experience base is signficantly different. hence it means that there >is no basis that the pool of nomcom participants is better (or worse). From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jan 23 13:05:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600604HT4HT@eListX.com> (original mail from dhc@dcrocker.net); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:55:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600601HT3HR@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:55:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0H9600601HT3HQ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:55:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (songbird.com [208.184.79.7]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0H960038PHT26N@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:55:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from BBFUJIP (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05387; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:55:24 -0800 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:55:45 -0600 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Update In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20030123120206.0274d068@mail.stevecrocker.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <7741388022.20030123115545@brandenburg.com> Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/4) Personal Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <357940000.1043339955@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <200301230418.h0N4InR2010216@thoth.ir.bbn.com> <212790000.1043310507@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <528984587.20030123082901@brandenburg.com> <357940000.1043339955@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <5.1.0.14.0.20030123120206.0274d068@mail.stevecrocker.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Joel, First, I certainly agree that there is nothing risky about making the change. And I share the subjective sense of comfort about it. My point is that we have no empirical basis for believing that it makes any real difference. As an example hypothesis, note that there could rather easily be an experience cliff after attendance of 1 meeting. That is, if you attend more than one meeting within a reasonable short time, them perhaps you are likely to attend many. So upping from 2 to 3 would make no real difference. To repeat: This is just an example of a pattern that would render the proposed change utterly meaningless. Without looking at the data more carefully, we simply do not know anything about the meaningfulness of the change, other than that it keeps the pool of nominees roughly the same size. And, of course, this all continues to ignore the small matter of validating the IETF process knowledge base of that pool. d/ ps. Given that a few weeks ago, my own use of subjective assessment for similar analysis was rather thoroughly dismissed, it is odd to see it being applied here. Thursday, January 23, 2003, 11:05:18 AM, you wrote: JMH> Actually Dave, we do have one piece of evidence that the experience base is JMH> different. The old rule guaranteed that the person had been to two JMH> meetings. The new rule guarantees that the person has been to three meetings. JMH> (I don't care whether in the most recent data sample all of the 2 out of 3 JMH> people had actually attended 5 meetings. The rules change still shifts the JMH> base assumptions one can make about a nomcom participant.) JMH> Most of us believe that this helps the chances of the nomcom participant JMH> being better. JMH> Yours, JMH> Joel M. Halpern JMH> At 10:47 AM 1/23/2003 -0600, Dave Crocker wrote: >>Thursday, January 23, 2003, 10:39:15 AM, you wrote: >> >> In contrast with the theoretical analysis, the empirical numbers we >> >> have been given show no serious difference. >> >>HTA> No serious difference in the *number* of eligible people. >>HTA> Which addressed the concern that some had that the pool would shrink too >>HTA> much, but tell us nothing about who those people are. >> >>ok. at the least that means that we do not have any basis that the >>experience base is signficantly different. hence it means that there >>is no basis that the pool of nomcom participants is better (or worse). JMH> ---------------------------------------------------------------- JMH> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription JMH> manager: d/ -- Dave Brandenburg InternetWorking t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850