From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jun 1 11:05:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HFT007045VZAD@eListX.com> (original mail from kre@munnari.OZ.AU); Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:04:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HFT007015VYAB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HFT007015VXAA@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fuchsia.home (ip25.coe.tnet.co.th [203.146.155.25]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HFT0039O5VFZG@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (delta.ex0.home [192.168.192.22]) by fuchsia.home with ESMTP id h51F34wW007670; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:03:04 +0700 (ICT) Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51F1kt13955; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:02:26 +0700 (ICT) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:01:46 +0700 From: Robert Elz Subject: Re: Alternative (H2) In-reply-to: To: RJ Atkinson Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <13953.1054479706@munnari.OZ.AU> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 20:28:41 -0400 From: RJ Atkinson Message-ID: | To try to be clear, in the English language as used in Virginia, where | I happen to live, "deadlock" has the meaning "not getting a decision". This doesn't matter much, but for me, deadlock generally means that something is preventing a decision being made, despite attempts to get there, and would normally not include "sorry, we haven't even started yet". But the latter is as much a (potential) problem for us. | My primary goal is to ensure that we get some decision, Yes, that's what I thought, and that's what I think is the wrong approach. Rather, what we should be doing is defining what happens when no decision is obtained (no matter what reason), rather than attempting to arbitrarily force one. This is more general, simpler, and with less side issues to deal with. | The problem we are fixing is a known *inability* to make a decision | in some cases. Fine, but what about a possible unwillingness to make a decision. While we're fixing it, now it has our attention, why not fix all cases? | If you really think you will persuade folks, a more productive approach | might be to post some specific proposed text (call it "J" maybe) | and see if others buy into that. I sent proposed text several days ago (without the luxury of an appended letter, but I think we can survive without that). kre From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jun 1 11:35:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HFT008046ZF77@eListX.com> (original mail from rja@extremenetworks.com) ; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:28:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HFT008016ZE75@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:28:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HFT008016ZD74@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:28:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gnat.inet.org (gnat.inet.org [63.108.254.91]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HFT003CR6ZCZG@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:28:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from extremenetworks.com (ssh.extremenetworks.com [10.0.2.2]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1AB67104; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:27:40 -0400 From: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: Alternative (H2) In-reply-to: <13953.1054479706@munnari.OZ.AU> To: Robert Elz Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <951715DE-9445-11D7-B3B5-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: On Sunday, Jun 1, 2003, at 11:01 America/Montreal, Robert Elz wrote: > | My primary goal is to ensure that we get some decision, > > Yes, that's what I thought, and that's what I think is the wrong > approach. > > Rather, what we should be doing is defining what happens when no > decision > is obtained (no matter what reason), rather than attempting to > arbitrarily > force one. This is more general, simpler, and with less side issues > to > deal with. H2 does precisely what you seem to wish, because it ensures that some decision is obtained -- by defining what happens if the CB doesn't reach a conclusion to confirm. So the approaches appear to me to be identical in practice. In particular, H2 says that if no decision is reached to confirm, the default is to reject. Between a default of confirm or a default of reject, reasonable people could make different choices, of course. (I do believe that we are tripping over words here; the joys of different dialects of English. :-( > Fine, but what about a possible unwillingness to make a decision. > While we're fixing it, now it has our attention, why not fix all cases? I believe that case is handled by H2 as it is. > | If you really think you will persuade folks, a more productive > approach > | might be to post some specific proposed text (call it "J" maybe) > | and see if others buy into that. > > I sent proposed text several days ago (without the luxury of an > appended > letter, but I think we can survive without that). Please resend that proposed text (with or without letter) as I did not see that note from you. Feel free to send it privately if you prefer. So far, to the extent I'm understanding your meaning, it appears that H2 does what you desire. Hence I am confused somewhat by your comments. Thanks, Ran From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jun 1 12:05:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HFT009048AKC6@eListX.com> (original mail from kre@munnari.OZ.AU); Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HFT009018AJC4@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HFT009018AIC3@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fuchsia.home (ip28.coe.tnet.co.th [203.146.155.28]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HFT003GV8AEZG@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:56:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (delta.ex0.home [192.168.192.22]) by fuchsia.home with ESMTP id h51FthwW026584; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:55:43 +0700 (ICT) Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51FsFt14974; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:54:18 +0700 (ICT) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:54:15 +0700 From: Robert Elz Subject: Re: Alternative (H2) In-reply-to: <951715DE-9445-11D7-B3B5-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> To: RJ Atkinson Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <14972.1054482855@munnari.OZ.AU> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <951715DE-9445-11D7-B3B5-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:27:40 -0400 From: RJ Atkinson Message-ID: <951715DE-9445-11D7-B3B5-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> | H2 does precisely what you seem to wish, because it ensures that some | decision is obtained -- by defining what happens if the CB doesn't reach a | conclusion to confirm. That isn't the way I read it. Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body uses, any candidate that is not confirmed under that rule must be rejected. That, to me, leaves open the possibility of the rule not being applied, that is "we haven't failed to confirm X, we just haven't considered X yet". | Between a default of confirm or a default of reject, | reasonable people could make different choices, of course. Yes, in my initial suggested text, I said PQRSed, because at the time I had no opinion which was better. Since then I have decided that "default confirm" is the better choice, as that means that the respect that a decision of the nomcom should be offered is being retained - it should take a positive decision of the confirming body to reject someone (and it avoids one possibility of deadlock caused by a deadlocked confirming body that simply won't approve anyone the nomcom sends because of some internal conflict in that body). | (I do believe that we are tripping over words here; the joys of | different dialects of English. :-( Maybe. | Please resend that proposed text (with or without letter) | as I did not see that note from you. OK, here it is (again) (with the PQRSed that was in the previous version replaced by "confirmed"). Call it J if you like... 4. The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate. That decision must be made within a reasonable timeframe. Failing a decision, the slate of candidates, or any candidate not explicitly confirmed or rejected, will be considered to have been confirmed. Upon reflection (now), I'd probably actually just say (so call this one J instead...) 4. The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate. That decision must be made and reported to the nominating committee within a reasonable timeframe. Failing a decision, any candidate not explicitly confirmed or rejected, will be considered to have been confirmed. | So far, to the extent I'm understanding your meaning, it appears that H2 | does what you desire. Hence I am confused somewhat by your comments. H2 makes lots of assumptions that are unjustified. It assumes that the confirming body has "members", it assumes that it makes decisions by voting, or by some other rule (that is, it assumes that it needs a rule for making decisions) and more. None of that is warranted, and none of it is necessary. We just say to Z - please tell us if these people are OK. Z says "yes" or "no" or doesn't reply (within a reasonable timeframe) at all. That's all that matters to us. Here, we're just trying to work out what happens in the third of those cases - do do that we don't have to fictionalise a decision from Z, we simply say that the candidate(s) are confirmed (or perhaps rejected). kre From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 07:35:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000I04AQKQA@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:32:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000I01AQJQ8@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:32:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000I01AQIQ7@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apocalypse.org (apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG000CHUAQHW8@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:32:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acm.org (IDENT:0p2hR5Z9x1uv+D+A7vpoAFVpm0YqbIUN@apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by apocalypse.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55BVqN02453 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:31:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:31:26 +0200 From: Avri Doria Subject: H2 or J To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@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 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: To the working group. We currently have 2 suggestions that, I believe, express two different solutions and sets of opinions. I would like to hear opinions from the WG on preferences to see if there is rough consensus on one view or the other. I have included the 2 sections of suggested text below. I have one other question I want to direct to the group. both sets of text refer to the CB making decisions within a reasonable time. Is this sufficient? Or would a more precise definition of the time limit be needed. Thanks a. ------- (H2) The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate using a confirmation decision rule chosen by the confirming body. If a confirming body has no specific confirmation decision rule, then confirming a given candidate should require at least one-half of the Confirming Body's sitting members to agree to that confirmation. The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, by asserting consensus based on informal exchanges (e.g. email), or by any other mechanism that is conduct the normal business of the confirming body. Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body uses, any candidate that is not confirmed under that rule must be rejected. The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable timeframe. The results from the confirming body must be reported promptly to the nominating committee. (J) The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate. That decision must be made and reported to the nominating committee within a reasonable timeframe. Failing a decision, any candidate not explicitly confirmed or rejected, will be considered to have been confirmed. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 07:35:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000I04AT9SD@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000I01AT8SB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:34:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000I01AT6SA@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:34:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apocalypse.org (apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG000DC0AT5SJ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:34:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acm.org (IDENT:RWTQlKHaKWornhfNTQphADTKjHDe0ZRA@apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by apocalypse.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55BXVN02536 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:33:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:33:05 +0200 From: Avri Doria Subject: CB-nomcom communications Re: Current version? To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3EDF2A71.7070703@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 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 References: <511525194.1053615628@localhost> <511525194.1053615628@localhost> <5.2.1.1.2.20030522120526.03077100@pop.mindspring.com> <3ECEF16D.5000803@acm.org> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: A personal opinion: I too can live with this language with one minor exception. My issue is with the word slate in line 4. Since we had several issues with ways to treat slates, I would prefer to see us avoid the baggage of that conflict by substituting 'list of candidates' for 'slate'. a. >> >>> If not all the candidates submitted to a confirming body are >>> rapidly confirmed, the confirming body continues to communicate >>> with the nominating committee both to understand the committee's >>> rationale for the slate and, if appropriate, to explain the reason >>> why all the candidates were not confirmed. >>> The confirming body may ask the nominating committee for additional >>> information about a nominee, or about the nominating committee's >>> procedure, >>> to assist them in their deliberations. However, the confirming body >>> and the nominating committee must refrain from mutual communication >>> about availability, qualification or characteristics of other possible >>> candidates for the position. >> From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 07:45:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000J04AYJ0X@eListX.com> (original mail from sob@newdev.harvard.edu) ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:37:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000J01AYI0V@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000J01AYH0U@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:37:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG000CI9AYGW8@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:37:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h55Bafra021486; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2/Submit) id h55Bafgi021485; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:36:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Bradner Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@acm.org> To: avri@acm.org, ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <200306051136.h55Bafgi021485@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: H2 > reasonable time 2 weeks Scott From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 08:45:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000L04DSGTE@eListX.com> (original mail from rja@extremenetworks.com) ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000L01DSFTC@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000L01DSETB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:38:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gnat.inet.org (gnat.inet.org [63.108.254.91]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG000K2WDSDYM@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.18.3.100]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9B267103; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:07:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:37:47 -0400 From: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: <200306051136.h55Bafgi021485@newdev.harvard.edu> To: avri Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <82F3D86E-9752-11D7-A833-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: On Thursday, Jun 5, 2003, at 07:36 America/Montreal, Scott Bradner wrote: > H2 > >> reasonable time > > 2 weeks > > Scott I prefer H2. I have no objection to Scott's proposal of "2 weeks"; I can also live with "reasonable amount of time". Ran rja@extremenetworks.com From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 08:45:24 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000M04DYC1J@eListX.com> (original mail from kre@munnari.OZ.AU); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:42:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000M01DYB1H@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:42:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000M01DYA1G@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:42:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ratree.psu.ac.th (ratree.psu.ac.th [202.12.73.3]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG000K3UDY7YL@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:42:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (delta.coe.psu.ac.th [172.30.0.98]) by ratree.psu.ac.th (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55CfI226702; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:41:19 +0700 (ICT) Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55CfEi11381; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:41:14 +0700 (ICT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:41:14 +0700 From: Robert Elz Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@acm.org> To: Avri Doria Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <10984.1054816874@munnari.OZ.AU> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@acm.org> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:31:26 +0200 From: Avri Doria Message-ID: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@acm.org> You know my opinion on the text (J) but ... | I have one other question I want to direct to the group. | both sets of text refer to the CB making decisions | within a reasonable time. Is this sufficient? Or would a | more precise definition of the time limit be needed. More precise I think (in that part I was just copying what had previously been suggested). But Scott's 2 weeks is not (nearly) long enough - expecially if failing to meet it is going to cause results (which both proposals assume). 4 weeks would be the absolute minimum (last I heard, the IAB only meets once every month, for example), 6 or 8 weeks probably more realistic. kre From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 08:55:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000M04E3M6Y@eListX.com> (original mail from sob@newdev.harvard.edu) ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:45:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000M01E3K6S@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000M01E3J6K@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:45:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG000K42E3HYM@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h55CiVra021853 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2/Submit) id h55CiVxV021852 for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:44:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Bradner Subject: Re: H2 or J To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <200306051244.h55CiVxV021852@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: kre sez: > 4 weeks would be the absolute minimum (last I heard, > the IAB only meets once every month, for example), 6 or 8 weeks > probably more realistic. both the IAB and the ISOC board know how to use email and they both know how to set up special phone calls remember that making the approval time longer pushes back the date by which the nomcom has to get its job done - its hard enough as it is Scott From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 09:15:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000004FAKHJ@eListX.com> (original mail from kre@munnari.OZ.AU); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:11:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000001FAJHH@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:11:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000001FAIHG@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ratree.psu.ac.th (ratree.psu.ac.th [202.12.73.3]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG000K8CFAGYM@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (delta.coe.psu.ac.th [172.30.0.98]) by ratree.psu.ac.th (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55DAH209984; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:10:17 +0700 (ICT) Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55DA6i11349; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:10:07 +0700 (ICT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:10:06 +0700 From: Robert Elz Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: <200306051244.h55CiVxV021852@newdev.harvard.edu> To: Scott Bradner Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <11505.1054818606@munnari.OZ.AU> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <200306051244.h55CiVxV021852@newdev.harvard.edu> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:44:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Bradner Message-ID: <200306051244.h55CiVxV021852@newdev.harvard.edu> | both the IAB and the ISOC board know how to use email When I was doing this, the IAB knew how to use e-mail, but deliberately didn't for any (non generalities) discussions of confirmation matters, that was all done over the phone (or once or twice, in person). | and they both know how to set up special phone calls Again, at the time, maybe they did, but that never happened - scheduling people's time is the hard part, not dialing the telephone. | remember that making the approval time longer pushes back the date | by which the nomcom has to get its job done - its hard enough as it is Yes, I know - I also remain convinced that a deadline (any reasonable deadline) is the true driving force to much of this, allow an extra 3 or 4 weeks, and the discussions will expand to fill that time. Do remember that if the confirming body has insufficient time its only real choice (whether by default, or specifically) is to just say "we reject all of those, today" and then expect the nominating committee to submit the same names again later - with the conforming body then having the extra time while waiting for the resubmit, and the next required answer, to actually discuss the issue. I don't think that's the way we should be expecting things to work - avoiding it means allowing enough time in the first place. kre From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 10:05:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000204HCWHN@eListX.com> (original mail from joel@stevecrocker.com) ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000201HCUHL@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:55:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000201HCTHI@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EXECDSL.COM (ns.execdsl.net [208.184.15.238]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG000KJ2HCNYL@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:55:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [64.254.114.114] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 4781278 for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:54:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:54:32 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@acm.org> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@mail.stevecrocker.com To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030605095249.028b1af8@mail.stevecrocker.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: I prefer H2 both on structure and substance. With regard to "reasonable time", we can live with the current text. If we want to tighten it up, it will have to specify a pretty short time period (2 or 3 weeks). Stating a time period, but making it long (4 weeks or longer) is a recipe for trouble. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 01:31 PM 6/5/2003 +0200, Avri Doria wrote: >Subject: H2 or J >To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com > >To the working group. > >We currently have 2 suggestions that, I believe, >express two different solutions and sets of opinions. > >I would like to hear opinions from the WG on preferences >to see if there is rough consensus on one view or the >other. > >I have included the 2 sections of suggested text below. > >I have one other question I want to direct to the group. >both sets of text refer to the CB making decisions >within a reasonable time. Is this sufficient? Or would a >more precise definition of the time limit be needed. > >Thanks > >a. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 11:05:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000504KBGHZ@eListX.com> (original mail from brian@hursley.ibm.com) ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:59:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000501KBFHX@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000501KBEHV@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:59:38 -0400 (EDT) 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 <0HG000KNSKBCYM@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:59:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.196]) by d12lmsgate-5.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h55EweKY020286; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:58:44 +0200 Received: from ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.140]) by d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.5) with SMTP id h55Eso8P286294; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:54:52 +0200 Received: from dhcp22-66.zurich.ibm.com by ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (AIX 4.3/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA50828 from ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:54:48 +0200 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:55:13 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: CB-nomcom communications Re: Current version? To: Avri Doria Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3EDF59D1.346FB2A3@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: <511525194.1053615628@localhost> <511525194.1053615628@localhost> <5.2.1.1.2.20030522120526.03077100@pop.mindspring.com> <3ECEF16D.5000803@acm.org> <3EDF2A71.7070703@acm.org> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Good idea. "Slate" is a US-only word in this context anyway; we don't write up candidates' names on a slate in Britain, for example. Brian Avri Doria wrote: > > A personal opinion: > > I too can live with this language with one minor > exception. My issue is with the word slate in line 4. > Since we had several issues with ways to treat slates, > I would prefer to see us avoid the baggage of that > conflict by substituting > 'list of candidates' for 'slate'. > > a. > > >> > >>> If not all the candidates submitted to a confirming body are > >>> rapidly confirmed, the confirming body continues to communicate > >>> with the nominating committee both to understand the committee's > >>> rationale for the slate and, if appropriate, to explain the reason > >>> why all the candidates were not confirmed. > >>> The confirming body may ask the nominating committee for additional > >>> information about a nominee, or about the nominating committee's > >>> procedure, > >>> to assist them in their deliberations. However, the confirming body > >>> and the nominating committee must refrain from mutual communication > >>> about availability, qualification or characteristics of other > possible > >>> candidates for the position. > >> > From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 11:15:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000504KKUZ6@eListX.com> (original mail from brian@hursley.ibm.com) ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:05:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000501KKRYW@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000501KKQYB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:05:14 -0400 (EDT) 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 <0HG00046LKKJC8@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:05:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.180]) by d12lmsgate-5.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h55F4CKY082632 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:04:16 +0200 Received: from ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.140]) by d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.5) with SMTP id h55F3aKg157014 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:03:39 +0200 Received: from dhcp22-66.zurich.ibm.com by ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (AIX 4.3/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA22756 from ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:03:35 +0200 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:04:00 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Subject: reasonable time [Re: H2 or J] To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3EDF5BE0.62FE81FB@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: <200306051244.h55CiVxV021852@newdev.harvard.edu> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Scott Bradner wrote: > > kre sez: > > 4 weeks would be the absolute minimum (last I heard, > > the IAB only meets once every month, for example), 6 or 8 weeks > > probably more realistic. > > both the IAB and the ISOC board know how to use email and they > both know how to set up special phone calls > > remember that making the approval time longer pushes back the date > by which the nomcom has to get its job done - its hard enough as it is But this is *exactly* why we increased the time span of the whole process. My experience in both the IAB and the ISOC Board is that two weeks is *not* enough time if there are any contentious cases. There just isn't time to discuss, ask questions, and then take a formal poll. Setting up an ad hoc conf call for either of them is challenging. Calendars simply don't overlap with that many people to consider. For the ISOC Board, you can't even assume daily email usage. I much prefer to leave it as "reasonable", because in any case the process sets an outside limit. Maybe it should say "reasonable time within the limits set by the process timeline discussed in Section ." Brian From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 13:55:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000F04S2J9V@eListX.com> (original mail from harald@alvestrand.no); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:47:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000F01S2I9T@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000F01S2H9S@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (nat.alvestrand.no [217.13.28.204]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG000C83S2F5A@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no [192.168.1.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F23625B6; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:46:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:46:17 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: reasonable time [Re: H2 or J] In-reply-to: <3EDF5BE0.62FE81FB@hursley.ibm.com> To: Brian E Carpenter , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3650000.1054835177@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: <200306051244.h55CiVxV021852@newdev.harvard.edu> <3EDF5BE0.62FE81FB@hursley.ibm.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: --On torsdag, juni 05, 2003 17:04:00 +0200 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I much prefer to leave it as "reasonable", because in any case the > process sets an outside limit. Maybe it should say "reasonable time > within the limits set by the process timeline discussed in Section > ." "within the limits set by the process timeline", if the timeline is clear, is an unambiguous time limit, and avoids repeating text. We don't need to have "reasonable" if we have that. Harald From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 14:05:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000F04SLCT6@eListX.com> (original mail from rja@extremenetworks.com) ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:58:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000F01SLBT4@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:58:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000F01SLAT3@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gnat.inet.org (gnat.inet.org [63.108.254.91]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG000CADSL45A@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:58:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.18.3.100]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6ED67103; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:57:30 -0400 From: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: <11505.1054818606@munnari.OZ.AU> To: Robert Elz Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <2D2CADAB-977F-11D7-A833-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: On Thursday, Jun 5, 2003, at 09:10 America/Montreal, Robert Elz wrote: > | and they both know how to set up special phone calls > > Again, at the time, maybe they did, but that never happened - > scheduling > people's time is the hard part, not dialing the telephone. Recent instances of the IAB have held conference calls as needed, including at least one specially scheduled in order to review Nomcom-proposed candidates. I don't see that 2 weeks creates a problem for the confirming body to decide on each candidate proposed by Nomcom, based on my experience of the past 4 years on the IAB. I have no data on the ISoc situation, but doubt it would be radically different. Ran rja@extremenetworks.com From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 14:05:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000F04SNOWL@eListX.com> (original mail from rja@extremenetworks.com) ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:59:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000F01SNMWJ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000F01SNMWI@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:59:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gnat.inet.org (gnat.inet.org [63.108.254.91]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG000CAWSNK5A@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:59:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.18.3.100]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A224867103; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:28:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:58:58 -0400 From: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: reasonable time [Re: H2 or J] In-reply-to: <3650000.1054835177@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <61E302C4-977F-11D7-A833-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: On Thursday, Jun 5, 2003, at 13:46 America/Montreal, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > > --On torsdag, juni 05, 2003 17:04:00 +0200 Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > >> I much prefer to leave it as "reasonable", because in any case the >> process sets an outside limit. Maybe it should say "reasonable time >> within the limits set by the process timeline discussed in Section >> ." > > "within the limits set by the process timeline", if the timeline is > clear, is an unambiguous time limit, and avoids repeating text. > > We don't need to have "reasonable" if we have that. Either of those words (Brian's or Harald's) would also be OK with me. Ran From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 14:45:29 2003 Return-Path: Return-path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000I04UJ146@eListX.com> (original mail from huitema@windows.microsoft.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:40:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000I01UIZ44@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:40:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG000I01UIY43@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail4.microsoft.com (mail4.microsoft.com [131.107.3.122]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG000AP2UIWJA@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:40:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail5.microsoft.com ([157.54.6.156]) by mail4.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6624); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:39:22 -0700 Received: from inet-vrs-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.6.157]) by mail5.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6624); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:39:16 -0700 Received: from 157.54.6.150 by inet-vrs-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:39:16 -0700 Received: from red-imc-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.9.107]) by inet-hub-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0) ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:39:15 -0700 Received: from win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.39]) by red-imc-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:39:15 -0700 Received: from WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.81]) by win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3788.0); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:39:14 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:39:13 -0700 From: Christian Huitema Subject: RE: H2 or J To: RJ Atkinson , Robert Elz Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6940.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Thread-Topic: H2 or J Thread-Index: AcMrjAGN6wrH2LqmQhGc/Rr+B4ESVwABXe/w Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jun 2003 18:39:14.0689 (UTC) FILETIME=[C382D710:01C32B91] > I don't see that 2 weeks creates a problem for the confirming body = to > decide on each candidate proposed by Nomcom, based on my experience > of the past 4 years on the IAB. I have no data on the ISoc situati= on, > but doubt it would be radically different. The standard delay for an electronic vote by the ISOC board is actual= ly two weeks. The electronic vote can only conclude if no trustee put a veto during that period. Vetoes can only be overridden in a face to f= ace meeting or in a teleconf. Bottom line: two weeks is on the short side= of reasonable. -- Christian Huitema From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 17:55:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG10050439CGS@eListX.com> (original mail from galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG10050139BGQ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:48:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG10050139AGP@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG10018A3992U@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:48:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:48:21 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@acm.org> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII References: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@acm.org> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: I prefer J. On "reasonable" I'm with Harald. The overall process timeline is quite clear and everybody knows it (or is easily reminded). There is no question as to the "drop dead" time for a decision. Jim On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Avri Doria wrote: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:31:26 +0200 From: Avri Doria To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Subject: H2 or J To the working group. We currently have 2 suggestions that, I believe, express two different solutions and sets of opinions. I would like to hear opinions from the WG on preferences to see if there is rough consensus on one view or the other. I have included the 2 sections of suggested text below. I have one other question I want to direct to the group. both sets of text refer to the CB making decisions within a reasonable time. Is this sufficient? Or would a more precise definition of the time limit be needed. Thanks a. ------- (H2) The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate using a confirmation decision rule chosen by the confirming body. If a confirming body has no specific confirmation decision rule, then confirming a given candidate should require at least one-half of the Confirming Body's sitting members to agree to that confirmation. The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, by asserting consensus based on informal exchanges (e.g. email), or by any other mechanism that is conduct the normal business of the confirming body. Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body uses, any candidate that is not confirmed under that rule must be rejected. The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable timeframe. The results from the confirming body must be reported promptly to the nominating committee. (J) The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate. That decision must be made and reported to the nominating committee within a reasonable timeframe. Failing a decision, any candidate not explicitly confirmed or rejected, will be considered to have been confirmed. ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 5 18:35:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG10070451TY7@eListX.com> (original mail from mstjohns@mindspring.com) ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:27:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG10070151RY3@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG10070151QY2@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:27:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bluejay.mail.pas.earthlink.net (bluejay.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.218]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG1001DQ51P2Y@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pcp802197pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net ([68.48.86.43] helo=STJOHNS-LAPTOP2.mindspring.com) by bluejay.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19O3Bs-0006Xc-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:26:36 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:26:34 -0400 From: Michael StJohns Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@acm.org> X-Sender: mstjohns@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com To: Avri Doria , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5.2.1.1.2.20030605182552.01e0df88@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii X-ELNK-Trace: 9f6ded143da542dc9c7f779228e2f6aeda0071232e20db4d06e86f4d0f81705dbf4b6fc986541512350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: H2 At 07:31 6/5/2003, Avri Doria wrote: >To the working group. > >We currently have 2 suggestions that, I believe, >express two different solutions and sets of opinions. > >I would like to hear opinions from the WG on preferences >to see if there is rough consensus on one view or the >other. > >I have included the 2 sections of suggested text below. > >I have one other question I want to direct to the group. >both sets of text refer to the CB making decisions >within a reasonable time. Is this sufficient? Or would a >more precise definition of the time limit be needed. > >Thanks > >a. > > >------- > >(H2) > >The confirming body decides whether it confirms each >candidate using a confirmation decision rule chosen >by the confirming body. > >If a confirming body has no specific confirmation >decision rule, then confirming a given candidate >should require at least one-half of the Confirming >Body's sitting members to agree to that confirmation. > >The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, >by asserting consensus based on informal exchanges >(e.g. email), or by any other mechanism that is >conduct the normal business of the confirming body. > >Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body >uses, any candidate that is not confirmed under that >rule must be rejected. > >The confirming body must make its decision within a >reasonable timeframe. The results from the confirming >body must be reported promptly to the nominating committee. > > > >(J) > >The confirming body decides whether it confirms each >candidate. That decision must be made and reported to >the nominating committee within a reasonable timeframe. >Failing a decision, any candidate not explicitly confirmed >or rejected, will be considered to have been confirmed. > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jun 8 22:45:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700D040MW7N@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:37:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700D010MV7L@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:37:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700D010MU7K@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:37:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apocalypse.org (apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG7009KI0MTTM@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:37:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acm.org (IDENT:hTmubA1qx/8LBQu+TrNjGyI8jssC4x81@apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by apocalypse.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h592and14795 for ; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:36:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:36:20 +0900 From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: H2 or J To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3EE3F2A4.2000006@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 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 References: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@acm.org> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Hi, Unless I missed some email, so far only 6 people have spoken up with a choice. I would like to call the consensus on this on Thursday 12 June, so _please_ folks speak up by the end of Wednesday 11 June. Thanks a. Avri Doria wrote: > To the working group. > > We currently have 2 suggestions that, I believe, > express two different solutions and sets of opinions. > > I would like to hear opinions from the WG on preferences > to see if there is rough consensus on one view or the > other. > > I have included the 2 sections of suggested text below. > > I have one other question I want to direct to the group. > both sets of text refer to the CB making decisions > within a reasonable time. Is this sufficient? Or would a > more precise definition of the time limit be needed. > > Thanks > > a. > > > ------- > > (H2) > > The confirming body decides whether it confirms each > candidate using a confirmation decision rule chosen > by the confirming body. > > If a confirming body has no specific confirmation > decision rule, then confirming a given candidate > should require at least one-half of the Confirming > Body's sitting members to agree to that confirmation. > > The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, > by asserting consensus based on informal exchanges > (e.g. email), or by any other mechanism that is > conduct the normal business of the confirming body. > > Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body > uses, any candidate that is not confirmed under that > rule must be rejected. > > The confirming body must make its decision within a > reasonable timeframe. The results from the confirming > body must be reported promptly to the nominating committee. > > > > (J) > > The confirming body decides whether it confirms each > candidate. That decision must be made and reported to > the nominating committee within a reasonable timeframe. > Failing a decision, any candidate not explicitly confirmed > or rejected, will be considered to have been confirmed. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: > From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jun 8 23:15:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700E041XCRL@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700E011XBRJ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:05:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700E011XARI@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:05:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apocalypse.org (apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG700E0K1X9O6@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acm.org (IDENT:4afnxmf31KazhQI1fz0WPXRbxB9fcRx7@apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by apocalypse.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5934id16506 for ; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:04:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:04:14 +0900 From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3EE3F92E.8020600@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 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 References: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B04284608@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Having read through this thread carefully, I am not sure I see where the consensus is falling yet. If I read correctly I see several positions: a. Do nothing. The provisions in the current document are sufficient to allow the Nomcom to deal with a liaison who misbehaving or with any conflict of interest that may arise. b. add the following as suggested by Jim: Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion. b. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion: Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested to temporarily leave a discussion by a majority of the voting members of the NomCom. (no one suggested this wording but something like it seems to be suggested by some of the comments. Instead of majority, implying a vote, the condition could be one of consensus. ) As is often the case on this list, too few people have spoken up on the issue. I would like to resolve this issue by the end of the week. So please speak up on which of the 3 choices you prefer. Thanks a. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jun 9 01:15:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700L047R9AP@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 01:11:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700L017R7AM@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 01:11:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700L017R6AL@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 01:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apocalypse.org (apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG700KF27R59W@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 01:11:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acm.org (IDENT:4b4Dms5g2te2XA78tf4hll5JuCf4HpbS@apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by apocalypse.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h595Abd23907 for ; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 01:10:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:10:08 +0900 From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members - correction To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3EE416B0.6060104@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 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 References: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B04284608@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: One of the opinions come in, and showed me that 2 choices had the same identifier. So the second b is corrected to c, though b2 works as well. thanks a. --- Having read through this thread carefully, I am not sure I see where the consensus is falling yet. If I read correctly I see several positions: a. Do nothing. The provisions in the current document are sufficient to allow the Nomcom to deal with a liaison who misbehaving or with any conflict of interest that may arise. b. add the following as suggested by Jim: Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion. c. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion: Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested to temporarily leave a discussion by a majority of the voting members of the NomCom. (no one suggested this wording but something like it seems to be suggested by some of the comments. Instead of majority, implying a vote, the condition could be one of consensus. ) As is often the case on this list, too few people have spoken up on the issue. I would like to resolve this issue by the end of the week. So please speak up on which of the 3 choices you prefer. Thanks a. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jun 9 06:45:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700B04MUXTQ@eListX.com> (original mail from kre@munnari.OZ.AU); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 06:37:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700B01MUWTO@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 06:37:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700B01MUWTN@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 06:37:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ratree.psu.ac.th (ratree.psu.ac.th [202.12.73.3]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG7006NVMUSCK@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 06:37:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (delta.coe.psu.ac.th [172.30.0.98]) by ratree.psu.ac.th (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59Aal219935; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:36:50 +0700 (ICT) Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59AYvS19965; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:34:58 +0700 (ICT) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:34:57 +0700 From: Robert Elz Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members - correction In-reply-to: <3EE416B0.6060104@acm.org> To: Avri Doria Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <20262.1055154897@munnari.OZ.AU> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <3EE416B0.6060104@acm.org> <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B04284608@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:10:08 +0900 From: Avri Doria Message-ID: <3EE416B0.6060104@acm.org> I'm not sure I have an opinion on this one, though I would probably lean (slightly) towards ... | a. Do nothing. But I have a question that applies equally to the other two options: | Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) Why would the past chair be treated differently here? Surely anyone who isn't a full nomcom member could be asked to be absent in the appropriate circumstances? If you add language like is proposed in either (b) or (c), then that is essentially declaring the past chair to be a full (non-voting) nomcom member - basically the same as the current chair (except not actually chairing the meetings). If that is really the intent, then simply define the past chair that way, so that position isn't included in with "liaisons and advisors" to start with, and doesn't need to be explicitly called out as an exception here. But I had always assumed that the past chair was added as an information passing mechanism - to help with continuity, and to provide advice as to how things had been handled before. None of that requires continuous attendance through every discussion. kre From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jun 9 09:15:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700I04TYPCB@eListX.com> (original mail from galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700I01TYMC7@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:11:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700I01TYLBX@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:11:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG700F8QTYJJA@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:10:41 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members - correction In-reply-to: <20262.1055154897@munnari.OZ.AU> To: Robert Elz Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII References: <3EE416B0.6060104@acm.org> <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B04284608@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> <20262.1055154897@munnari.OZ.AU> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Speaking as Editor: On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Robert Elz wrote: | Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) Why would the past chair be treated differently here? Surely anyone who isn't a full nomcom member could be asked to be absent in the appropriate circumstances? The Past Chair role is special because it has a responsibility to the ISOC President. Although the NOMCOM serves at the pleasure of the community, the NOMCOM Chair serves at the pleasure of the ISOC President. The Past Chair has the role of watching the process on behalf of the ISOC President -- particularly the current Chair. The ISOC President is the final arbiter of any issues that may be escalated for resolution outside of the NOMCOM itself. The Past Chair is the path to that final arbitration for NOMCOM voting members. Even so, as you suggest we could make the Past Chair be something other than an Advisor. I'm not opposed to this and would consider such a change an editorial one, but your mileage may vary. Jim From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jun 9 10:35:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700L04XRXDJ@eListX.com> (original mail from rja@extremenetworks.com) ; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700L01XRMCH@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:33:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700L01XRICE@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:33:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gnat.inet.org (gnat.inet.org [63.108.254.91]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG700FM9XRGJA@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.18.3.100]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6936667104; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:32:15 -0400 From: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members In-reply-to: <3EE3F92E.8020600@acm.org> To: Avri Doria Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <2AA7DD52-9A87-11D7-8B1D-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: I prefer (a). I do not object to (b) or (c). Ran rja@extremenetworks.com On Sunday, Jun 8, 2003, at 23:04 America/Montreal, Avri Doria wrote: > Having read through this thread carefully, I am not sure I see where > the consensus is falling yet. > > If I read correctly I see several positions: > > a. Do nothing. The provisions in the current document are sufficient > to allow the Nomcom to deal with a liaison who misbehaving or with > any conflict of interest that may arise. > > b. add the following as suggested by Jim: > > Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested > to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion. > > b. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion: > > Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested > to temporarily leave a discussion by a majority of the voting > members of the NomCom. > > (no one suggested this wording but something like it seems > to be suggested by some of the comments. Instead of majority, > implying a vote, the condition could be one of consensus. ) > > As is often the case on this list, too few people have spoken up > on the issue. I would like to resolve this issue by the end of > the week. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jun 9 10:45:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700L04Y15O2@eListX.com> (original mail from rja@extremenetworks.com) ; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700L01Y13O0@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:39:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG700L01Y13NX@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:39:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gnat.inet.org (gnat.inet.org [63.108.254.91]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG700J8FY12YT@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:39:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.18.3.100]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1400267104; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:38:11 -0400 From: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members - correction In-reply-to: <20262.1055154897@munnari.OZ.AU> To: Robert Elz Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: On Monday, Jun 9, 2003, at 06:34 America/Montreal, Robert Elz wrote: > But I have a question that applies equally to the other two options: > > | Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) > > Why would the past chair be treated differently here? Surely anyone > who isn't a full nomcom member could be asked to be absent in the > appropriate circumstances? I believe the notional difference is that the liaisons are currently serving on either IAB or IESG (or ISoc BoT), whilst the past Nomcom Chair is NOT serving on either IAB or IESG (or ISoc BoT) during the time of the current Nomcom. - I'm indifferent to whether the past chair is treated the same or differently. - I'm also indifferent as to whether the ISoc BoT liaison is treated the same or differently (on the assumption that the ISoc BoT liaison is not concurrently an IAB or IESG member). > If you add language like is proposed in either (b) or (c), then that > is essentially declaring the past chair to be a full (non-voting) > nomcom > member - basically the same as the current chair (except not actually > chairing the meetings). If that is really the intent, then simply > define the past chair that way, so that position isn't included in with > "liaisons and advisors" to start with, and doesn't need to be > explicitly > called out as an exception here. I would not object to such a clarification of the definition of the Past Nomcom Chair, since my understanding of existing practice is consistent with the intent you describe in the quoted paragraph above. Ran rja@extremenetworks.com From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jun 9 11:45:06 2003 Return-Path: Return-path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG8001040PVEL@eListX.com> (original mail from huitema@windows.microsoft.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:37:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG8001010PTEI@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG8001010PTEH@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:37:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.microsoft.com (mail1.microsoft.com [131.107.3.125]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG800M6T0PR9K@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from inet-vrs-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.8.27]) by mail1.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6659); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:36:13 -0700 Received: from 157.54.8.23 by inet-vrs-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:36:13 -0700 Received: from red-imc-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.9.102]) by inet-hub-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0) ; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:36:13 -0700 Received: from win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.39]) by red-imc-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:36:12 -0700 Received: from WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.82]) by win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3788.0); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:36:12 -0700 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:36:11 -0700 From: Christian Huitema Subject: RE: H2 or J To: Avri Doria , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6940.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Thread-Topic: H2 or J Thread-Index: AcMuMCwqHmZSQJQnSGSuc95B1nrsWgAbGziw Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jun 2003 15:36:12.0393 (UTC) FILETIME=[DB347590:01C32E9C] I prefer H2. Well, in fact, I like the concise wording of J, but I prefer the outcome of H2, i.e., a candidate not explicitly confirmed = or rejected is *rejected*. Confirm by default is a bad idea, and also a path to laziness. Reject by default sends the strong message to the confirming body that they have better get their act together, or something violently public will happen. > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 7:36 PM > To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com > Subject: Re: H2 or J >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Unless I missed some email, so far only 6 people have > spoken up with a choice. I would like to call the consensus > on this on Thursday 12 June, so _please_ folks speak up by > the end of Wednesday 11 June. >=20 > Thanks > a. >=20 >=20 > Avri Doria wrote: > > To the working group. > > > > We currently have 2 suggestions that, I believe, > > express two different solutions and sets of opinions. > > > > I would like to hear opinions from the WG on preferences > > to see if there is rough consensus on one view or the > > other. > > > > I have included the 2 sections of suggested text below. > > > > I have one other question I want to direct to the group. > > both sets of text refer to the CB making decisions > > within a reasonable time. Is this sufficient? Or would a > > more precise definition of the time limit be needed. > > > > Thanks > > > > a. > > > > > > ------- > > > > (H2) > > > > The confirming body decides whether it confirms each > > candidate using a confirmation decision rule chosen > > by the confirming body. > > > > If a confirming body has no specific confirmation > > decision rule, then confirming a given candidate > > should require at least one-half of the Confirming > > Body's sitting members to agree to that confirmation. > > > > The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, > > by asserting consensus based on informal exchanges > > (e.g. email), or by any other mechanism that is > > conduct the normal business of the confirming body. > > > > Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body > > uses, any candidate that is not confirmed under that > > rule must be rejected. > > > > The confirming body must make its decision within a > > reasonable timeframe. The results from the confirming > > body must be reported promptly to the nominating committee. > > > > > > > > (J) > > > > The confirming body decides whether it confirms each > > candidate. That decision must be made and reported to > > the nominating committee within a reasonable timeframe. > > Failing a decision, any candidate not explicitly confirmed > > or rejected, will be considered to have been confirmed. > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > manager: > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jun 9 22:05:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG800504TNRK1@eListX.com> (original mail from tytso@thunk.org); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:02:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG800501TNQJZ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:02:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG800501TNPJY@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thunker.thunk.org (thunk.org [140.239.227.29]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG8000FDTNOK3@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:02:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [66.254.10.53] (helo=think.thunk.org) authenticated as tytso by thunker.thunk.org with asmtp (tls_cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19PYRq-0001lW-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:01:18 -0400 Received: from tytso authenticated as tytso by think.thunk.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19PYRp-0006PR-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:01:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:01:17 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: To: Christian Huitema Cc: Avri Doria , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <20030610020116.GA23879@think> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i References: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 08:36:11AM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote: > I prefer H2. Well, in fact, I like the concise wording of J, but I > prefer the outcome of H2, i.e., a candidate not explicitly confirmed or > rejected is *rejected*. Confirm by default is a bad idea, and also a > path to laziness. Reject by default sends the strong message to the > confirming body that they have better get their act together, or > something violently public will happen. I agree with Christian's summary of the tradeoffs and with his ultimate preference: H2. I'll also add that if the default answer is "reject", then it's less important as to exactly what the more ambiguous specification of "reasonable time" is means, which is another advantage of H2. Regardless, it's pretty clear though that if the confirmation body doesn't hand back an answer in time for the March IETF meetting, most people would agree that this would be considered problematic! - Ted From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jun 10 03:35:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG900M048USZI@eListX.com> (original mail from harald@alvestrand.no); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:30:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG900M018URZG@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:30:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG900M018URZF@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:30:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (nat.alvestrand.no [217.13.28.204]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG900KVG8ULEB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no [192.168.1.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 886D0625A3; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:29:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:29:30 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@acm.org> To: Avri Doria , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <47850000.1055230170@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: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@acm.org> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: --On torsdag, juni 05, 2003 13:31:26 +0200 Avri Doria wrote: > To the working group. > > We currently have 2 suggestions that, I believe, > express two different solutions and sets of opinions. > > I would like to hear opinions from the WG on preferences > to see if there is rough consensus on one view or the > other. > > I have included the 2 sections of suggested text below. I am happy with both texts; if pressed, I'd slightly prefer H2. > > I have one other question I want to direct to the group. > both sets of text refer to the CB making decisions > within a reasonable time. Is this sufficient? Or would a > more precise definition of the time limit be needed. > I think it's sufficient, given that the outer timeline is already given. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jun 10 07:35:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG900E04JSE1Q@eListX.com> (original mail from kre@munnari.OZ.AU); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 07:26:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG900E01JSE1O@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 07:26:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG900E01JSD1N@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 07:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ratree.psu.ac.th (ratree.psu.ac.th [202.12.73.3]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HG900CFEJS6PT@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 07:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (delta.coe.psu.ac.th [172.30.0.98]) by ratree.psu.ac.th (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5ABPX208974; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:25:33 +0700 (ICT) Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5ABM1o11580; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:22:01 +0700 (ICT) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:22:01 +0700 From: Robert Elz Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: To: Christian Huitema Cc: Avri Doria , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <8282.1055244121@munnari.OZ.AU> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:36:11 -0700 From: Christian Huitema Message-ID: | I prefer H2. Well, in fact, I like the concise wording of J, but I | prefer the outcome of H2, i.e., a candidate not explicitly confirmed or | rejected is *rejected*. Actually, we should make it clear here that either H2 or J could be worded so the default action is accept or reject. Please don't allow that difference between them as written to influence things. If the form of J is what is preferred, but "default reject" is the desired outcome, then "confirmed" in J can easily become "rejected" (when I first wrote it I said "PQRSed" because I didn't much care which way it went - since then I have come to prefer "confirmed" but I still don't care that much either way on that part). kre From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jun 10 08:25:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG900G04M8XHA@eListX.com> (original mail from brian@hursley.ibm.com) ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG900G01M8WH8@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HG900G01M8WH7@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:19:44 -0400 (EDT) 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 <0HG900FE1M8U1I@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:19:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.180]) by d12lmsgate-5.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5ACIpIe043758 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:18:51 +0200 Received: from ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.140]) by d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.5) with SMTP id h5ACIoNQ222178 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:18:51 +0200 Received: from dhcp22-128.zurich.ibm.com by ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (AIX 4.3/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA28070 from ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:18:49 +0200 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:19:12 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members - correction To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3EE5CCC0.BF8B4199@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: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B04284608@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> <3EE416B0.6060104@acm.org> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Small preference for b, but a or c work too. Brian Avri Doria wrote: > > One of the opinions come in, > and showed me that 2 choices had the same > identifier. > > So the second b is corrected to c, though b2 works as well. > > thanks > a. > > --- > > Having read through this thread carefully, I am not sure I see where > the consensus is falling yet. > > If I read correctly I see several positions: > > a. Do nothing. The provisions in the current document are sufficient > to allow the Nomcom to deal with a liaison who misbehaving or with > any conflict of interest that may arise. > > b. add the following as suggested by Jim: > > Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested > to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion. > > c. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion: > > Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested > to temporarily leave a discussion by a majority of the voting > members of the NomCom. > > (no one suggested this wording but something like it seems > to be suggested by some of the comments. Instead of majority, > implying a vote, the condition could be one of consensus. ) > > As is often the case on this list, too few people have spoken up > on the issue. I would like to resolve this issue by the end of > the week. > > So please speak up on which of the 3 choices you prefer. > > Thanks > > a. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jun 15 20:45:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGJ00I04TRYX6@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@apocalypse.org); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGJ00I01TRXX4@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGJ00I01TRXX3@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:38:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apocalypse.org (apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HGJ00GA3TRW9D@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apocalypse.org (IDENT:ANWO/jQHeP4hbWCe3/B+KK1OTy+//L0Q@apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by apocalypse.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G0bPd22386 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:37:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:37:19 +0900 From: avri Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: <3EDF2A0E.2060108@acm.org> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Hi, Well though fewer then 10 people have spoken up, i believe there is a rough consensus for H2. Even if I take into account the 2 people who seemed to prefer H2 because it was a reject by default as opposed to accept by default the consensus falls slightly toward H2, though it becomes very close. Part of what tilts the language toward H2 are the large number of people who participated in crafting that bit of language. To those who took the time and effort to draft the various language suggestions and who took to the time to speak up: thanks. a. On Thursday, Jun 5, 2003, at 20:31 Asia/Seoul, Avri Doria wrote: > To the working group. > > We currently have 2 suggestions that, I believe, > express two different solutions and sets of opinions. > > I would like to hear opinions from the WG on preferences > to see if there is rough consensus on one view or the > other. > > I have included the 2 sections of suggested text below. > > I have one other question I want to direct to the group. > both sets of text refer to the CB making decisions > within a reasonable time. Is this sufficient? Or would a > more precise definition of the time limit be needed. > > Thanks > > a. > > > ------- > > (H2) > > The confirming body decides whether it confirms each > candidate using a confirmation decision rule chosen > by the confirming body. > > If a confirming body has no specific confirmation > decision rule, then confirming a given candidate > should require at least one-half of the Confirming > Body's sitting members to agree to that confirmation. > > The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, > by asserting consensus based on informal exchanges > (e.g. email), or by any other mechanism that is > conduct the normal business of the confirming body. > > Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body > uses, any candidate that is not confirmed under that > rule must be rejected. > > The confirming body must make its decision within a > reasonable timeframe. The results from the confirming > body must be reported promptly to the nominating committee. > > > > (J) > > The confirming body decides whether it confirms each > candidate. That decision must be made and reported to > the nominating committee within a reasonable timeframe. > Failing a decision, any candidate not explicitly confirmed > or rejected, will be considered to have been confirmed. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: > > From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jun 15 20:45:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGJ00I04TXXZI@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:41:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGJ00I01TXWZG@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:41:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGJ00I01TXVZF@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:41:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apocalypse.org (apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HGJ00H6STXU0Q@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:41:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acm.org (IDENT:OaPTZ1zKRm2Df7ibrz3I8BEFlzYkPlbA@apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by apocalypse.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G0evd22525; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:40:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:40:50 +0900 From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: CB-nomcom communications Re: Current version? In-reply-to: <3EDF59D1.346FB2A3@hursley.ibm.com> To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <2DB5B18C-9F93-11D7-8EBB-000393CC2112@acm.org> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Since no one has spoken up since this last message, I believe we have rough consensus on Brian's language as amended. I suggest the amended language be put in the draft. a. On Thursday, Jun 5, 2003, at 23:55 Asia/Seoul, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Good idea. "Slate" is a US-only word in this context anyway; > we don't write up candidates' names on a slate in Britain, for example. > > Brian > > Avri Doria wrote: >> >> A personal opinion: >> >> I too can live with this language with one minor >> exception. My issue is with the word slate in line 4. >> Since we had several issues with ways to treat slates, >> I would prefer to see us avoid the baggage of that >> conflict by substituting >> 'list of candidates' for 'slate'. >> >> a. >> >>>> >>>>> If not all the candidates submitted to a confirming body are >>>>> rapidly confirmed, the confirming body continues to communicate >>>>> with the nominating committee both to understand the committee's >>>>> rationale for the slate and, if appropriate, to explain the >>>>> reason >>>>> why all the candidates were not confirmed. >>>>> The confirming body may ask the nominating committee for >>>>> additional >>>>> information about a nominee, or about the nominating committee's >>>>> procedure, >>>>> to assist them in their deliberations. However, the confirming >>>>> body >>>>> and the nominating committee must refrain from mutual >>>>> communication >>>>> about availability, qualification or characteristics of other >> possible >>>>> candidates for the position. >>>> >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: > > From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sun Jun 15 21:25:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGJ00J04VJUWY@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@apocalypse.org); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGJ00J01VJTWW@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:16:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGJ00J01VJSWU@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:16:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cms1.etri.re.kr (cms1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.11]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HGJ00HADVJQ0Q@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:16:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apocalypse.org (129.254.191.55 [129.254.191.55]) by cms1.etri.re.kr with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id LR9C5GCQ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:13:42 +0900 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:15:29 +0900 From: avri Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members In-reply-to: <3EE3F92E.8020600@acm.org> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <0510ABC0-9F98-11D7-8EBB-000393CC2112@apocalypse.org> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: On this issue, I am not able to find us having reached any sort of rough consensus. I believe that in this case, we should not change the document and should allow the current language to stand. It should be noted, and has been, that although we are not adding explicit language at this time, as the provision does exist in the current language for the Nomcom to vote in any ad-hoc rule they consider necessary, the exclusion of Liaisons from particular discussions remains possible. a. On Monday, Jun 9, 2003, at 12:04 Asia/Seoul, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Having read through this thread carefully, I am not sure I see where > the consensus is falling yet. > > If I read correctly I see several positions: > > a. Do nothing. The provisions in the current document are sufficient > to allow the Nomcom to deal with a liaison who misbehaving or with > any conflict of interest that may arise. > > b. add the following as suggested by Jim: > > Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested > to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion. > > b. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion: actually c. > > Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested > to temporarily leave a discussion by a majority of the voting > members of the NomCom. > > (no one suggested this wording but something like it seems > to be suggested by some of the comments. Instead of majority, > implying a vote, the condition could be one of consensus. ) > > As is often the case on this list, too few people have spoken up > on the issue. I would like to resolve this issue by the end of > the week. > > So please speak up on which of the 3 choices you prefer. > > > Thanks > > a. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: > > From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jun 16 10:55:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGK00504WZKZR@eListX.com> (original mail from Jim.Bound@hp.com); Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:45:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGK00501WZJZO@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:45:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGK00501WZIZM@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zmamail05.zma.compaq.com (zmamail05.zma.compaq.com [161.114.64.105]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HGK0048WWZGHF@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.96]) by zmamail05.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC00DD14; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:44:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6673); Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:44:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:44:20 -0400 From: "Bound, Jim" Subject: RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members To: avri , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B03241364@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Thread-Topic: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members Thread-Index: AcMzpNbVNXoCifQVSZqQTGyreFbGYQAbZMiQ content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2003 14:44:21.0438 (UTC) FILETIME=[C5D2A5E0:01C33415] Avri, It was Brian's suggested text that did not reach consensus not mine,m= y wording was too strong. Is this the final decision, if so I am fine with that because each nomcom can get input that they have this optio= n. =46rom watching the problem statement list I am now totally convinced= this wording should be part of the rules and stated clearly. There were people that supported some form of text change for this though, so I = am not the only one wanting this change. Regards, /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: avri [mailto:avri@apocalypse.org]=20 > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:15 PM > To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com > Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members >=20 >=20 > On this issue, I am not able to find us having reached any=20 > sort of rough consensus. >=20 > I believe that in this case, we should not change the=20 > document and should allow the current language to stand. >=20 > It should be noted, and has been, that although we are not=20 > adding explicit language at this time, as the provision does=20 > exist in the current language for the Nomcom to vote in any=20 > ad-hoc rule they consider necessary, the exclusion of=20 > Liaisons from particular discussions remains possible. >=20 > a. >=20 > On Monday, Jun 9, 2003, at 12:04 Asia/Seoul, Avri Doria wrote: >=20 > > > > > > Having read through this thread carefully, I am not sure I=20 > see where=20 > > the consensus is falling yet. > > > > If I read correctly I see several positions: > > > > a. Do nothing. The provisions in the current document are=20 > sufficient=20 > > to allow the Nomcom to deal with a liaison who misbehaving=20 > or with any=20 > > conflict of interest that may arise. > > > > b. add the following as suggested by Jim: > > > > Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested > > to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion. > > > > b. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion: > actually c. > > > > Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested > > to temporarily leave a discussion by a majority of the voting > > members of the NomCom. > > > > (no one suggested this wording but something like it seems > > to be suggested by some of the comments. Instead of majority= , > > implying a vote, the condition could be one of consensus. ) > > > > As is often the case on this list, too few people have spoken up = on=20 > > the issue. I would like to resolve this issue by the end=20 > of the week. > > > > So please speak up on which of the 3 choices you prefer. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > a. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > manager: > > > > >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: >=20 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jun 17 05:05:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGM00M04BKGN5@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@apocalypse.org); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGM00M01BKEN3@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:57:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGM00M01BKEN2@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:57:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cms1.etri.re.kr (cms1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.11]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HGM00L7ABKC2A@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:57:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apocalypse.org (129.254.191.55 [129.254.191.55]) by cms1.etri.re.kr with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NAHCHHYZ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:56:53 +0900 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:56:46 +0900 From: avri Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members In-reply-to: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B03241364@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> To: "Bound, Jim" Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <9FCB2944-A0A1-11D7-A220-000393CC2112@apocalypse.org> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Hi Jim, You ask if this is final. As with any consensus call, if lots of people jump up and claim that I got the consensus wrong, then no, it is not final. However, I feel we did not reach consensus at this time and I do not believe that more discussion at this point will get us to a consensus point. I appreciate that there are people who agree with you, but we seem to have as many who do not. And as you say, an individual Nomcom is empowered to deal with this issue should it desire to. I have a strong pull to get this doc into WG last call and into the IESG hands as soon as possible and so, would like to considered the issue closed for this pass. Thanks a. On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 23:44 Asia/Seoul, Bound, Jim wrote: > Avri, > > It was Brian's suggested text that did not reach consensus not mine,my > wording was too strong. Is this the final decision, if so I am fine > with that because each nomcom can get input that they have this option. > From watching the problem statement list I am now totally convinced > this > wording should be part of the rules and stated clearly. There were > people that supported some form of text change for this though, so I am > not the only one wanting this change. > > Regards, > > /jim > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: avri [mailto:avri@apocalypse.org] >> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:15 PM >> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com >> Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members >> >> >> On this issue, I am not able to find us having reached any >> sort of rough consensus. >> >> I believe that in this case, we should not change the >> document and should allow the current language to stand. >> >> It should be noted, and has been, that although we are not >> adding explicit language at this time, as the provision does >> exist in the current language for the Nomcom to vote in any >> ad-hoc rule they consider necessary, the exclusion of >> Liaisons from particular discussions remains possible. >> >> a. >> >> On Monday, Jun 9, 2003, at 12:04 Asia/Seoul, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Having read through this thread carefully, I am not sure I >> see where >>> the consensus is falling yet. >>> >>> If I read correctly I see several positions: >>> >>> a. Do nothing. The provisions in the current document are >> sufficient >>> to allow the Nomcom to deal with a liaison who misbehaving >> or with any >>> conflict of interest that may arise. >>> >>> b. add the following as suggested by Jim: >>> >>> Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested >>> to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion. >>> >>> b. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion: >> actually c. >>> >>> Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested >>> to temporarily leave a discussion by a majority of the voting >>> members of the NomCom. >>> >>> (no one suggested this wording but something like it seems >>> to be suggested by some of the comments. Instead of majority, >>> implying a vote, the condition could be one of consensus. ) >>> >>> As is often the case on this list, too few people have spoken up on >>> the issue. I would like to resolve this issue by the end >> of the week. >>> >>> So please speak up on which of the 3 choices you prefer. >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>> manager: >>> >>> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >> manager: >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: > From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jun 17 08:25:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGM00704KZQ2O@eListX.com> (original mail from brian@hursley.ibm.com) ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:21:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGM00701KZP2L@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:21:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGM00701KZN2I@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com [194.196.100.235]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HGM004ARKZLN3@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.196]) by d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5HCKAPO073082; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:20:11 +0200 Received: from ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.5) with SMTP id h5HCJp1C293984; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:19:55 +0200 Received: from dhcp22-128.zurich.ibm.com by ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (AIX 4.3/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA45002 from ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:19:47 +0200 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:20:07 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members To: avri Cc: "Bound, Jim" , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3EEF0777.9BC62465@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: <9FCB2944-A0A1-11D7-A220-000393CC2112@apocalypse.org> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: As one of the people who debated this, I can live with Avri's "ruling". Brian avri wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > You ask if this is final. As with any consensus call, if > lots of people jump up and claim that I got the consensus wrong, > then no, it is not final. However, I feel we did not reach > consensus at this time and I do not believe that more discussion > at this point will get us to a consensus point. I appreciate > that there are people who agree with you, but we seem to have > as many who do not. And as you say, an individual Nomcom is > empowered to deal with this issue should it desire to. > > I have a strong pull to get this doc into WG last call and > into the IESG hands as soon as possible and so, would like to > considered the issue closed for this pass. > > Thanks > > a. > > On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 23:44 Asia/Seoul, Bound, Jim wrote: > > > Avri, > > > > It was Brian's suggested text that did not reach consensus not mine,my > > wording was too strong. Is this the final decision, if so I am fine > > with that because each nomcom can get input that they have this option. > > From watching the problem statement list I am now totally convinced > > this > > wording should be part of the rules and stated clearly. There were > > people that supported some form of text change for this though, so I am > > not the only one wanting this change. > > > > Regards, > > > > /jim > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: avri [mailto:avri@apocalypse.org] > >> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:15 PM > >> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com > >> Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members > >> > >> > >> On this issue, I am not able to find us having reached any > >> sort of rough consensus. > >> > >> I believe that in this case, we should not change the > >> document and should allow the current language to stand. > >> > >> It should be noted, and has been, that although we are not > >> adding explicit language at this time, as the provision does > >> exist in the current language for the Nomcom to vote in any > >> ad-hoc rule they consider necessary, the exclusion of > >> Liaisons from particular discussions remains possible. > >> > >> a. > >> > >> On Monday, Jun 9, 2003, at 12:04 Asia/Seoul, Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Having read through this thread carefully, I am not sure I > >> see where > >>> the consensus is falling yet. > >>> > >>> If I read correctly I see several positions: > >>> > >>> a. Do nothing. The provisions in the current document are > >> sufficient > >>> to allow the Nomcom to deal with a liaison who misbehaving > >> or with any > >>> conflict of interest that may arise. > >>> > >>> b. add the following as suggested by Jim: > >>> > >>> Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested > >>> to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion. > >>> > >>> b. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion: > >> actually c. > >>> > >>> Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requested > >>> to temporarily leave a discussion by a majority of the voting > >>> members of the NomCom. > >>> > >>> (no one suggested this wording but something like it seems > >>> to be suggested by some of the comments. Instead of majority, > >>> implying a vote, the condition could be one of consensus. ) > >>> > >>> As is often the case on this list, too few people have spoken up on > >>> the issue. I would like to resolve this issue by the end > >> of the week. > >>> > >>> So please speak up on which of the 3 choices you prefer. > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> a. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Tue Jun 17 21:45:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGN00I04M6TUF@eListX.com> (original mail from Jim.Bound@hp.com); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGN00I01M6SUD@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:44:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGN00I01M6SUC@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:44:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zmamail05.zma.compaq.com (zmamail05.zma.compaq.com [161.114.64.105]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HGN00EGSM6R5E@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:44:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.103]) by zmamail05.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 341B2BCCF; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6673); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:43:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:43:51 -0400 From: "Bound, Jim" Subject: RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members To: avri Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B04284B8C@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Thread-Topic: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members Thread-Index: AcM0rmtN9MxBPEKERA6KGzb3WyKRggAjJpfQ content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2003 01:43:52.0957 (UTC) FILETIME=[12B302D0:01C3353B] Avri, That's fine thanks for the response. /jim =20 >-----Original Message----- >From: avri [mailto:avri@apocalypse.org]=20 >Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 4:57 AM >To: Bound, Jim >Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com >Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members > > >Hi Jim, > >You ask if this is final. As with any consensus call, if >lots of people jump up and claim that I got the consensus=20 >wrong, then no, it is not final. However, I feel we did not=20 >reach consensus at this time and I do not believe that more=20 >discussion at this point will get us to a consensus point. I=20 >appreciate that there are people who agree with you, but we=20 >seem to have as many who do not. And as you say, an individual=20 >Nomcom is empowered to deal with this issue should it desire to. > >I have a strong pull to get this doc into WG last call and >into the IESG hands as soon as possible and so, would like to=20 >considered the issue closed for this pass. > >Thanks > >a. > > >On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 23:44 Asia/Seoul, Bound, Jim wrote: > >> Avri, >> >> It was Brian's suggested text that did not reach consensus=20 >not mine,my=20 >> wording was too strong. Is this the final decision, if so I am fi= ne=20 >> with that because each nomcom can get input that they have this= =20 >> option. From watching the problem statement list I am now totally= =20 >> convinced this wording should be part of the rules and=20 >stated clearly. =20 >> There were people that supported some form of text change for this= =20 >> though, so I am not the only one wanting this change. >> >> Regards, >> >> /jim >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: avri [mailto:avri@apocalypse.org] >>> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:15 PM >>> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com >>> Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members >>> >>> >>> On this issue, I am not able to find us having reached any sort o= f=20 >>> rough consensus. >>> >>> I believe that in this case, we should not change the document an= d=20 >>> should allow the current language to stand. >>> >>> It should be noted, and has been, that although we are not adding= =20 >>> explicit language at this time, as the provision does exist in th= e=20 >>> current language for the Nomcom to vote in any ad-hoc rule they= =20 >>> consider necessary, the exclusion of Liaisons from particular= =20 >>> discussions remains possible. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> On Monday, Jun 9, 2003, at 12:04 Asia/Seoul, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Having read through this thread carefully, I am not sure I >>> see where >>>> the consensus is falling yet. >>>> >>>> If I read correctly I see several positions: >>>> >>>> a. Do nothing. The provisions in the current document are >>> sufficient >>>> to allow the Nomcom to deal with a liaison who misbehaving >>> or with any >>>> conflict of interest that may arise. >>>> >>>> b. add the following as suggested by Jim: >>>> >>>> Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requeste= d >>>> to temporarily leave a discussion at the Chair's discretion. >>>> >>>> b. add the following which is a rewording of Jim's suggestion: >>> actually c. >>>> >>>> Liaisons and advisors (except the past Chair) may be requeste= d >>>> to temporarily leave a discussion by a majority of the votin= g >>>> members of the NomCom. >>>> >>>> (no one suggested this wording but something like it seems >>>> to be suggested by some of the comments. Instead of majorit= y, >>>> implying a vote, the condition could be one of consensus. ) >>>> >>>> As is often the case on this list, too few people have=20 >spoken up on=20 >>>> the issue. I would like to resolve this issue by the end >>> of the week. >>>> >>>> So please speak up on which of the 3 choices you prefer. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> a. >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>>> manager: >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>> manager: >>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >> manager: >> > > From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jun 18 13:15:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGO00904SX7WL@eListX.com> (original mail from galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com); Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGO00901SX6WG@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGO00901SX4WD@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:07:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HGO005FWSX36F@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:07:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:07:21 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: H2 or J In-reply-to: To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII References: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: So, Step 4 in Rule 7 in Section 3 General, has been changed to the text indicated with one minor editorial change that seems to have gotten lost along the way: In the 4th paragraph change: must be rejected to be: is considered to be rejected Jim On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, avri wrote: Well though fewer then 10 people have spoken up, i believe there is a rough consensus for H2. > The confirming body decides whether it confirms each > candidate using a confirmation decision rule chosen > by the confirming body. > > If a confirming body has no specific confirmation > decision rule, then confirming a given candidate > should require at least one-half of the Confirming > Body's sitting members to agree to that confirmation. > > The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, > by asserting consensus based on informal exchanges > (e.g. email), or by any other mechanism that is > conduct the normal business of the confirming body. > > Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body > uses, any candidate that is not confirmed under that > rule must be rejected. > > The confirming body must make its decision within a > reasonable timeframe. The results from the confirming > body must be reported promptly to the nominating committee. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 19 07:35:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGQ0070483WHM@eListX.com> (original mail from nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us) ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGQ0070183MGV@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HGQ0070183LGR@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:33:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HGQ0070R83IBO@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:33:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA09468; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:32:03 -0400 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-id: <200306191132.HAA09468@ietf.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_fn4bEI+T9q85ua6oObdGPA)" List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: --Boundary_(ID_fn4bEI+T9q85ua6oObdGPA) Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Operation of the IESG/IAB Nominating and Recall Committees Working Group of the IETF. Title : IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees Author(s) : J. Galvin Filename : draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt Pages : 41 Date : 2003-6-18 The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected, confirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a self-consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known at the time of publication. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --Boundary_(ID_fn4bEI+T9q85ua6oObdGPA) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_1z+hmVTqL22gTyYghnmwvg)" --Boundary_(ID_1z+hmVTqL22gTyYghnmwvg) Content-type: Message/External-body; server="mailserv@ietf.org"; access-type=mail-server Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-6-18140345.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt --Boundary_(ID_1z+hmVTqL22gTyYghnmwvg) Content-type: Message/External-body; directory=internet-drafts; access-type=anon-ftp; site=ftp.ietf.org; name=draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-6-18140345.I-D@ietf.org> --Boundary_(ID_1z+hmVTqL22gTyYghnmwvg)-- --Boundary_(ID_fn4bEI+T9q85ua6oObdGPA)-- From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 26 09:05:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300804AQOU2@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:59:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300801AQNU0@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:59:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300801AQMTZ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:59:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apocalypse.org (apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HH3002KBAQLUP@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:59:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acm.org (IDENT:FQIx6td3wDKpciU5WjSnPk2lWhAkp/zk@apocalypse.org [192.48.232.17]) by apocalypse.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5QCw4G18304 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:58:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:58:00 +0900 From: Avri Doria Subject: WG Last Call To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: I have been waiting for the Nomcom draft to come out, and it turns out the my mailer put the announcement in the wrong mailbox. So it turns out that the draft has been out for 8 days now. I hope folks have taken the time to read it. The message begins the Nomcom WG last call on: Title : IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees Author(s) : J. Galvin Filename : draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt Pages : 41 Date : 2003-6-18 A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt The last call will last for 2 weeks. Beginning: Thursday 26 June 2003 (today) Ending: Friday 11 July 2003 (any time zone) a. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 26 10:25:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300C04EJYXD@eListX.com> (original mail from sob@newdev.harvard.edu) ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300C01EJXXB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:21:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300C01EJWXA@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:21:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HH300C20EJVFB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:21:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h5QEKSDw024971 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:20:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2/Submit) id h5QEKSZb024970 for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:20:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:20:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Bradner Subject: Re: WG Last Call To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <200306261420.h5QEKSZb024970@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: looks generally good to me but some comments/suggestions Scott ------------ sec 4 8. The following rules apply if a candidate to be submitted to a confirming body is a sitting member of the IESG, IAB, or ISOC Board of Trustees, and the candidate is not serving in an open position being filled by the nominating committee. I do not think the above is all that easily parseable - I think what is being said is that the following rules apply if an continuing IAB member is being nominated for an IESG seat or if a continuing IESG member is being nominated for a different IESG seat or for a IAB seat. - if so, can we say that? if not, can we say what is actually meant? The confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not automatically create a vacancy in the IESG or IAB position currently occupied by the candidate. The mid-term vacancy can not exist until, first, the candidate formally resigns from the current position This text does not say that the individual MUST resign their "old" position. The assumption is clearly in this and other sections but the doc does not clearly make the resignation a requirement. I have not been able to find where it says that the same person can not be both on the IAB and IESG (other than some confusing text under Oral Tradition: 2. No person should ever be nominated to serve on both the IESG and the IAB concurrently; this does not apply to the IETF Chair who serves on both bodies by definition. this text could mean that I can not nominate an individual and say "this person should be an AD and an IAB member at the same time" or it could mean that a person should not be on both - but it is not clear - if it means the latter it should just say that "other than the IAB chair, no individual may service simultaneously on the IESG and IAB" Nor do I see anyplace that says that an individual can not fill two IESG seats at the same time (selected seats rather than the IPng or SUB-IP type of temporary seats) - e.g. a nomcom could decide to select a continuing AD for an open seat then the person does not resign from the old seat. sec 5 8. Only the prior year's Chair may request the recall of the current Chair. but the last year's chair is not always on the nomcom (see 4.11) - maybe this needs to be 'the prior year's chair or the person sitting in his or her place' sec 5 11. Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of the IETF community for any open position, whose eligibility to serve will be confirmed by the nominating committee. why is the nominee limited to "the IETF community" (and what does that mean anyway? sec 5 - 15 Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates. Rejected candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates. does the second part of this mean 'candidates rejected by the confirming body'? if so - can it say that? From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 26 11:15:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300F02GUBSK@eListX.com> (original mail from ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:10:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300F01GUASJ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:10:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300F01GUASI@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com) ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:10:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300F04GU9SF@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:10:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300F01GU8SD@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300F01GU8SB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HH300CDWGU6FA@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:10:22 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: <200306261420.h5QEKSZb024970@newdev.harvard.edu> To: Scott Bradner Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII References: <200306261420.h5QEKSZb024970@newdev.harvard.edu> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Speaking as Editor: On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Scott Bradner wrote: sec 4 8. The following rules apply if a candidate to be submitted to a confirming body is a sitting member of the IESG, IAB, or ISOC Board of Trustees, and the candidate is not serving in an open position being filled by the nominating committee. I do not think the above is all that easily parseable - I think what is being said is that the following rules apply if an continuing IAB member is being nominated for an IESG seat or if a continuing IESG member is being nominated for a different IESG seat or for a IAB seat. - if so, can we say that? if not, can we say what is actually meant? You are correct. I will find some alternate words and run it through the list here. The confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not automatically create a vacancy in the IESG or IAB position currently occupied by the candidate. The mid-term vacancy can not exist until, first, the candidate formally resigns from the current position This text does not say that the individual MUST resign their "old" position. The assumption is clearly in this and other sections but the doc does not clearly make the resignation a requirement. You are correct and that is intentional. There has been no consensus suggesting that a person can not serve in two roles at the same time. Many believe the NOMCOM would never nominate someone for two roles, but "many" has not been determined to be consensus. That is why the "restriction" is only an "oral tradition" and the rest of the document is vague and ambiguous. (other than some confusing text under Oral Tradition: 2. No person should ever be nominated to serve on both the IESG and the IAB concurrently; this does not apply to the IETF Chair who serves on both bodies by definition. this text could mean that I can not nominate an individual and say "this person should be an AD and an IAB member at the same time" or it could mean that a person should not be on both - but it is not clear - if it means the latter it should just say that "other than the IAB chair, no individual may service simultaneously on the IESG and IAB" Yes, I see your point. I meant to say the latter, more precisely: 2. No person should serve on the IESG and IAB simultaneously, except the IETF Chair who serves on both bodies by definition. And I will make the change as I have indicated. sec 5 8. Only the prior year's Chair may request the recall of the current Chair. but the last year's chair is not always on the nomcom (see 4.11) - maybe this needs to be 'the prior year's chair or the person sitting in his or her place' It would probably be better to add some words in 4.11 that say that the title "Prior Year's Chair" refers to the individual serving in that role for the NOMCOM. That would ensure it applies throughout the document. sec 5 11. Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of the IETF community for any open position, whose eligibility to serve will be confirmed by the nominating committee. why is the nominee limited to "the IETF community" (and what does that mean anyway? The nominees are limited to the IETF community so that its leaders are selected from within itself. The term "IETF community" is intentionally undefined. sec 5 - 15 Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates. Rejected candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates. does the second part of this mean 'candidates rejected by the confirming body'? if so - can it say that? I believe that with a strict interpretation of the rules as documented what you say would be correct. However, a looser interpretation would permit the NOMCOM to reject a candidate, also. I am not opposed to making this change but I would prefer to hear if others also believe it is necessary or good. Jim From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 26 11:25:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300G04HASAS@eListX.com> (original mail from sob@newdev.harvard.edu) ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300G01HARAG@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300G01HAQAA@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HH300CFGHAOFB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:20:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h5QFJkDw025253; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2/Submit) id h5QFJkZc025252; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:19:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Bradner Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: To: galvin@eListX.com, sob@harvard.edu Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <200306261519.h5QFJkZc025252@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: > > The confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not > automatically create a vacancy in the IESG or IAB position > currently occupied by the candidate. The mid-term vacancy > can not exist until, first, the candidate formally resigns > from the current position > > This text does not say that the individual MUST resign their "old" > position. The assumption is clearly in this and other sections but > the doc does not clearly make the resignation a requirement. > > You are correct and that is intentional. There has been no consensus > suggesting that a person can not serve in two roles at the same time. > Many believe the NOMCOM would never nominate someone for two roles, but > "many" has not been determined to be consensus. That is why the > "restriction" is only an "oral tradition" and the rest of the document > is vague and ambiguous. maybe it would be better to say just that rather than just imply it by only having the oral tradition (being direct is not a fault :-) ) > sec 5 > 11. Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of the > IETF community for any open position, whose eligibility to serve > will be confirmed by the nominating committee. > > why is the nominee limited to "the IETF community" (and what does that mean > anyway? > > The nominees are limited to the IETF community so that its leaders are > selected from within itself. > > The term "IETF community" is intentionally undefined. I'm not sure of the value of the use of the term if its intentionally undefined - at one extreme the "IETF community" is anyone who knows enough to make a nomination (in which case the use of the term does not help) and the other is that the IETF community" is limited in some other way, but that other way is not defined the use of the term does not help > sec 5 - 15 > Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination must be > notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates. Rejected > candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed > candidates. > > does the second part of this mean 'candidates rejected by the confirming > body'? if so - can it say that? > > I believe that with a strict interpretation of the rules as documented > what you say would be correct. However, a looser interpretation would > permit the NOMCOM to reject a candidate, also. > I am not opposed to making this change but I would prefer to hear if > others also believe it is necessary or good. the reason it cought my eye is that it seems to be saying the same thing twice (redundancy is not your friend :-) ) - maybe it could be redone to say "Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination and rejected candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates." (but its not all that clear to me the difference between a consenting nominee and a candidate) Scott From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 26 13:45:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300002NXQTI@eListX.com> (original mail from ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:44:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300001NXPTH@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300001NXPTG@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com) ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300004NXOTD@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom+moderator@lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300001NXNTB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300001NXNT8@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:44:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HH30002RNXL9V@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:44:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:43:37 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: <200306261519.h5QFJkZc025252@newdev.harvard.edu> To: Scott Bradner Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII References: <200306261519.h5QFJkZc025252@newdev.harvard.edu> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Speaking as editor: On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Scott Bradner wrote: > The confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not > automatically create a vacancy in the IESG or IAB position > currently occupied by the candidate. The mid-term vacancy > can not exist until, first, the candidate formally resigns > from the current position > > This text does not say that the individual MUST resign their "old" > position. The assumption is clearly in this and other sections but > the doc does not clearly make the resignation a requirement. > > You are correct and that is intentional. There has been no consensus > suggesting that a person can not serve in two roles at the same time. maybe it would be better to say just that rather than just imply it by only having the oral tradition (being direct is not a fault :-) ) Sure, makes sense. If no one objects I consider it an editorial change so I'll do that. > The term "IETF community" is intentionally undefined. I'm not sure of the value of the use of the term if its intentionally undefined - at one extreme the "IETF community" is anyone who knows enough to make a nomination (in which case the use of the term does not help) and the other is that the IETF community" is limited in some other way, but that other way is not defined the use of the term does not help I went back and looked to confirm that the term "IETF community" has been used since the first NOMCOM RFC, rfc2027. There have been 1 or 2 additional uses of the term in each RFC and even in this draft. Based on that I believe that finding another term or even defining this term (we know where that discussion is going to take us :) is a new issue. Since we are now in last call on this document unless you consider the issue a show-stopper I would suggest saving this issue for the next iteration of the document. > sec 5 - 15 > Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination must be > notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates. Rejected > candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed > candidates. the reason it cought my eye is that it seems to be saying the same thing twice (redundancy is not your friend :-) ) - maybe it could be redone to say "Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination and rejected candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates." The redundancy I can fix and will do so. (but its not all that clear to me the difference between a consenting nominee and a candidate) Only the NOMCOM knows, and that is the point. Jim From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jun 26 13:55:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300104O1925@eListX.com> (original mail from sob@newdev.harvard.edu) ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300101O1823@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:46:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH300101O1722@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:46:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HH300M6ZO13SH@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:46:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h5QHjDDw026386; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2/Submit) id h5QHjDI1026385; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:45:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Bradner Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: To: galvin@eListX.com, sob@harvard.edu Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <200306261745.h5QHjDI1026385@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: > Since we are now in last call on this document unless you > consider the issue a show-stopper I do not > (but its not all that clear to me the difference between a consenting > nominee and a candidate) > Only the NOMCOM knows, and that is the point. I was speaking definitionally Scott From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sat Jun 28 19:15:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH700904S5OHY@eListX.com> (original mail from brian@hursley.ibm.com) ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:05:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH700901S5NHT@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:05:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HH700901S5MHP@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12lmsgate-4.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate-4.de.ibm.com [194.196.100.237]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HH70074US5LT3@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.196]) by d12lmsgate-4.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5SN4eMk007202 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:04:40 +0200 Received: from ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.5) with SMTP id h5SN4ejO274576 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:04:41 +0200 Received: from gsine03.us.sine.ibm.com by ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (AIX 4.3/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA34010 from ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:04:38 +0200 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:25:14 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: WG Last Call To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@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: <200306261420.h5QEKSZb024970@newdev.harvard.edu> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: In the Introduction, we have > However, these procedures are subject to change and such > change takes effect immediately upon its approval, regardless of > whether this document has yet been revised. This is no good as it stands, since it doesn't define whose approval is needed. Is it the IESG's? Is it the ISOC Board's? > 3. The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and, > in consultation with the nominating committee, consent to > some, all, or none of the candidates. Sigh. I thought we had got rid of this usage of "consultation" which Mike St Johns convincingly argued is incorrect, and replaced it with a neutral word such as "communication." True, there was no outpouring of support for this change, but there was no objection either, and Mike is correct that this process is *not* consultative. James M Galvin wrote: ... > sec 5 - 15 > Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination must be > notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates. Rejected > candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed > candidates. > > does the second part of this mean 'candidates rejected by the confirming > body'? if so - can it say that? > > I believe that with a strict interpretation of the rules as documented > what you say would be correct. However, a looser interpretation would > permit the NOMCOM to reject a candidate, also. > > I am not opposed to making this change but I would prefer to hear if > others also believe it is necessary or good. Logically, the Nomcom chooses the list of candidates, so only the CB can reject them. So I think the change is logically unnecessary, but does no harm. Brian From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jun 30 08:45:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHA00B04OKCN0@eListX.com> (original mail from dee3@torque.pothole.com) ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHA00B01OKAMY@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:40:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHA00B01OK9MX@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zydeco.netbusters.com (zydeco.netbusters.com [66.92.86.178]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HHA00894OK8DC@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by zydeco.netbusters.com (Postfix, from userid 513) id 62560B640C; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:39:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zydeco.netbusters.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613A27EC1C for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:39:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:39:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Donald Eastlake 3rd Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: X-X-Sender: dee3@zydeco.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: I have submitted version -02 of draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-. Changes from the previous draft are to have it reference the -rfc2727bis- draft instead of RFC 2727, remove some language redundant with rfc2727bis, and incorporate Erik Nordmark's changes in the reference code to permit the pool to be larger than 255. I believe it would be best to handle this as it was last time where RFC 2777 was just a personal Informational RFC and RFC 2727 was a working group BCP and they referenced each other, so I think that 2777bis and 2727bis should reference each other. But that's not a big deal and I don't want to de-rail anything. If 2727bis just references 2777, 2777 will, in any case, be obsoleted by 2777bis. When 2777bis-selection-01 was refered to the working group before, the only complain I can recall was that some material in it was somewhat duplicative of some material in 2727bis. There was no consensus that it should be a WG document. The IESG member handling 2777bis is Harald Alvestrand. 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 Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Avri Doria wrote: > Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:58:00 +0900 > From: Avri Doria > To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com > Subject: WG Last Call > > I have been waiting for the Nomcom draft to come out, > and it turns out the my mailer put the announcement in > the wrong mailbox. So it turns out that the draft has been > out for 8 days now. I hope folks have taken the time to > read it. > > The message begins the Nomcom WG last call on: > > > > Title : IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall > Process: Operation of the Nominating and > Recall > Committees > Author(s) : J. Galvin > Filename : draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt > Pages : 41 > Date : 2003-6-18 > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt > > The last call will last for 2 weeks. > Beginning: Thursday 26 June 2003 (today) > Ending: Friday 11 July 2003 (any time zone) > > a. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: >