From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 2 14:25:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00004TN35G@eListX.com> (original mail from galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00001TN25E@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00001TN25C@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HHE00M1QTN0Y9@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:21:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:20:24 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> To: Brian E Carpenter 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> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Sorry to be so long in responding to this. Speaking as editor: On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote: 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? This text was present in RFC2727, the document currently being revised, but none of the prior versions. My recollection of the time is that the intent was to ensure a NOMCOM could actually adopt a "waiting-for-final-approval" document as its process if any revision "currently in progress" was completed. However, in retrospect, I think this is wrong. I think the correct resolution for this issue is simply to remove the sentence. Unless there is an objection that is what I will do. > 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. Oops, oversight by me. I just missed a use of the word. It has been corrected by changing "consultation" to "communication." Thanks for catching this. Jim From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 2 14:35:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00004U3EKV@eListX.com> (original mail from mstjohns@mindspring.com) ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:30:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00001U3BKK@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:30:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00001U3AKI@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shell-ng.nominum.com (shell-ng.nominum.com [81.200.64.181]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HHE00M4WU39Y9@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from STJOHNS-LAPTOP2.mindspring.com (dhcp-100.engr.nominum.com [128.177.194.100]) by shell-ng.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2F156824; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:29:39 -0400 From: Michael StJohns Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: X-Sender: mstjohns@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com To: James M Galvin , Brian E Carpenter Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_OGfZibzWcKJdY8Vs1gq6EA)" References: <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <200306261420.h5QEKSZb024970@newdev.harvard.edu> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: --Boundary_(ID_OGfZibzWcKJdY8Vs1gq6EA) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii At 14:20 7/2/2003, James M Galvin wrote: >Sorry to be so long in responding to this. Speaking as editor: > > >Oops, oversight by me. I just missed a use of the word. It has been >corrected by changing "consultation" to "communication." No... that's not the correct change. From the May 22 note:::: >The confirming bodies review >their respective candidates and, > in >consultation with the nominating committee, consent to > some, all, >or none of the >candidates. The CBs have their own roles and MUST NOT be overly influenced by the Nomcom. So "in consultation with" needs to go. Brian proposed some alternate text which I can live with: > 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. >Thanks for catching this. > >Jim > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: --Boundary_(ID_OGfZibzWcKJdY8Vs1gq6EA) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

At 14:20 7/2/2003, James M Galvin wrote:
Sorry to be so long in responding to this.  Speaking as editor:


Oops, oversight by me.  I just missed a use of the word.  It has been
corrected by changing "consultation" to "communication."


No... that's not the correct change. 


From the May 22 note::::




The confirming bodies review
their respective candidates and,
           in
consultation with the nominating committee, consent to
           some, all,
or none of the
candidates.


The CBs have their own roles and MUST NOT be overly influenced by the Nomcom.  So "in consultation with" needs to go.

Brian proposed some alternate text which I can live with:

  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.


Thanks for catching this.

Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

--Boundary_(ID_OGfZibzWcKJdY8Vs1gq6EA)-- From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 2 14:55:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00104V5BM6@eListX.com> (original mail from galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00101V5AM4@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00101V59M2@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:53:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HHE00M8ZV57Y9@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:53:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:52:55 -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? Here is my proposed change: 4.8 The following rules apply to nominees who are currently sitting members of the IESG or IAB, and who are not sitting in an open position being filled by the nominating committee. Comments? Jim From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 2 15:15:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00204VXTCY@eListX.com> (original mail from galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00201VXSCW@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:10:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00201VXSCU@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:10:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HHE00MB5VXQY9@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:10:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:10:02 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> To: Michael StJohns Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII References: <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <200306261420.h5QEKSZb024970@newdev.harvard.edu> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Speaking as editor: The change to which you are referring was made in the body of that particular rule. What Brian just did was notice that the rule itself was not changed. The complete rule now says: (from Section 3, Rule 7) 3. The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and, in communication with the nominating committee, consent to some, all, or none of the candidates. The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates. The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB candidates. The confirming bodies conduct their review using all information and any means acceptable to them, including but not limited to the supporting information provided by the nominating committee, information known personally to members of the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming body, the results of interactions within the confirming bodies, and the confirming bodies interpretation of what is in the best interests of the IETF community. If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the nominating committee with respect to those open positions is complete. If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming body are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate with the nominating committee both to explain the reason why all the candidates were not confirmed and to understand the nominating committee's rationale for its candidates. The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in which case the nominating committee must select alternate candidates for the rejected candidates. Any additional time required by the nominating committee should not exceed its maximum time allotment. This is what I understood the desired change to be. Jim From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 2 16:05:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00404YDWXP@eListX.com> (original mail from mstjohns@mindspring.com) ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:03:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00401YDVXB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:03:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00401YDTX6@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:03:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shell-ng.nominum.com (shell-ng.nominum.com [81.200.64.181]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HHE00MI9YDSY9@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from STJOHNS-LAPTOP2.mindspring.com (dhcp-100.engr.nominum.com [128.177.194.100]) by shell-ng.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2033056824; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:02:22 -0400 From: Michael StJohns Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: X-Sender: mstjohns@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com To: James M Galvin Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702155947.02787930@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 References: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <200306261420.h5QEKSZb024970@newdev.harvard.edu> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: *sigh* The confirming bodies do NOT make their decisions "in communication with the nominating committee" Delete that phrase from the first clause and make it read "The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and consent to some, all, or none of the candidates." Mike At 15:10 7/2/2003, James M Galvin wrote: >Speaking as editor: > > >The change to which you are referring was made in the body of that >particular rule. What Brian just did was notice that the rule itself >was not changed. > >The complete rule now says: (from Section 3, Rule 7) > > > 3. The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and, > in communication with the nominating committee, consent to > some, all, or none of the candidates. > > The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates. > > The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB > candidates. > > The confirming bodies conduct their review using all > information and any means acceptable to them, including but > not limited to the supporting information provided by the > nominating committee, information known personally to members > of the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming > body, the results of interactions within the confirming > bodies, and the confirming bodies interpretation of what is > in the best interests of the IETF community. > > If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the > nominating committee with respect to those open positions is > complete. > > If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming > body are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate > with the nominating committee both to explain the reason why > all the candidates were not confirmed and to understand the > nominating committee's rationale for its candidates. > > The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in > which case the nominating committee must select alternate > candidates for the rejected candidates. > > Any additional time required by the nominating committee > should not exceed its maximum time allotment. > > >This is what I understood the desired change to be. > >Jim > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 2 16:25:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00504YXMKF@eListX.com> (original mail from galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:15:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00501YXLKD@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHE00501YXLKB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HHE000EFYXJPK@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:15:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:14:43 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702155947.02787930@pop.mindspring.com> To: Michael StJohns Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII References: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <200306261420.h5QEKSZb024970@newdev.harvard.edu> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702155947.02787930@pop.mindspring.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Speaking as editor: On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Michael StJohns wrote: *sigh* The confirming bodies do NOT make their decisions "in communication with the nominating committee" Delete that phrase from the first clause and make it read "The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and consent to some, all, or none of the candidates." But they do communicate. They receive supporting documentation and they are permitted to ask questions. In fact, there is an expectation of communication. The "in communication with" was explicitly added to ensure that the NOMCOM and the confirming body do not have a wall between them. To remove the phrase you suggest is, in my opinion as editor, not an editorial change. Jim At 15:10 7/2/2003, James M Galvin wrote: >Speaking as editor: > > >The change to which you are referring was made in the body of that >particular rule. What Brian just did was notice that the rule itself >was not changed. > >The complete rule now says: (from Section 3, Rule 7) > > > 3. The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and, > in communication with the nominating committee, consent to > some, all, or none of the candidates. > > The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates. > > The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB > candidates. > > The confirming bodies conduct their review using all > information and any means acceptable to them, including but > not limited to the supporting information provided by the > nominating committee, information known personally to members > of the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming > body, the results of interactions within the confirming > bodies, and the confirming bodies interpretation of what is > in the best interests of the IETF community. > > If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the > nominating committee with respect to those open positions is > complete. > > If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming > body are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate > with the nominating committee both to explain the reason why > all the candidates were not confirmed and to understand the > nominating committee's rationale for its candidates. > > The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in > which case the nominating committee must select alternate > candidates for the rejected candidates. > > Any additional time required by the nominating committee > should not exceed its maximum time allotment. > > >This is what I understood the desired change to be. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 2 16:55:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF007040FAQR@eListX.com> (original mail from mstjohns@mindspring.com) ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:47:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF007010F9QN@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF007010F9QL@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shell-ng.nominum.com (shell-ng.nominum.com [81.200.64.181]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HHF000JQ0F8PK@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from STJOHNS-LAPTOP2.mindspring.com (dhcp-100.engr.nominum.com [128.177.194.100]) by shell-ng.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E50C5684B; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:46:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:46:26 -0400 From: Michael StJohns Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: X-Sender: mstjohns@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com To: James M Galvin Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702163522.0264d4f0@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 References: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702155947.02787930@pop.mindspring.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <200306261420.h5QEKSZb024970@newdev.harvard.edu> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702155947.02787930@pop.mindspring.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Speaking as myself.. Yes the bodies do communicate, but they do not make their decisions in communication with the Nominating committee. Being "in communication with" implies an immediacy and constancy that is not appropriate. "communicates with" if there is an issue, a requirement for more information, or a rejection and at the need or request of the CB is appropriate - but its the CBs option (except of course for the rejection). There is and should be no requirement for the CB to communicate with the nomcom unless the CB desires more information. The nomcom provides the candidate, it does not then get to provide any more input unless the CB desires it. The nomcom does not get to try and sway, influence, cajole or otherwise contaminate the independence of the CBs deliberations. The nomcom sends the nomination and supporting documentation. The confirming bodies review that, ask questions if necessary, and then make their decision based on what they know at that point... they don't have a phone line open, the nomcom doesn't get a vote in the CB deliberations. There isn't even a requirement that the CB ask questions of the nomcom. The rest of this is all spelled out in the paragraphs below that clause. Either remove the clause, or use Brian's restatement. At 16:14 7/2/2003, James M Galvin wrote: >Speaking as editor: > > > >On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Michael StJohns wrote: > > *sigh* The confirming bodies do NOT make their decisions "in > communication with the nominating committee" Delete that phrase from > the first clause and make it read > > "The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and consent to > some, all, or none of the candidates." > >But they do communicate. They receive supporting documentation and they >are permitted to ask questions. In fact, there is an expectation of >communication. > >The "in communication with" was explicitly added to ensure that the >NOMCOM and the confirming body do not have a wall between them. To >remove the phrase you suggest is, in my opinion as editor, not an >editorial change. > >Jim > > > > At 15:10 7/2/2003, James M Galvin wrote: > >Speaking as editor: > > > > > >The change to which you are referring was made in the body of that > >particular rule. What Brian just did was notice that the rule itself > >was not changed. > > > >The complete rule now says: (from Section 3, Rule 7) > > > > > > 3. The confirming bodies review their respective candidates > and, > > in communication with the nominating committee, consent to > > some, all, or none of the candidates. > > > > The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates. > > > > The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB > > candidates. > > > > The confirming bodies conduct their review using all > > information and any means acceptable to them, including but > > not limited to the supporting information provided by the > > nominating committee, information known personally to > members > > of the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming > > body, the results of interactions within the confirming > > bodies, and the confirming bodies interpretation of what is > > in the best interests of the IETF community. > > > > If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the > > nominating committee with respect to those open positions is > > complete. > > > > If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming > > body are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate > > with the nominating committee both to explain the reason why > > all the candidates were not confirmed and to understand the > > nominating committee's rationale for its candidates. > > > > The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in > > which case the nominating committee must select alternate > > candidates for the rejected candidates. > > > > Any additional time required by the nominating committee > > should not exceed its maximum time allotment. > > > > > >This is what I understood the desired change to be. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 2 16:55:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF007040J0W7@eListX.com> (original mail from sob@newdev.harvard.edu) ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:49:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF007010IXVT@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF007010IUVQ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:49:43 -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 <0HHF000IE0ITPM@eListX.com>; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:49:41 -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 h62KmYDw025334; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2/Submit) id h62KmY5C025333; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:48:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Bradner Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702163522.0264d4f0@pop.mindspring.com> To: galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com, mstjohns@mindspring.com Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <200307022048.h62KmY5C025333@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: I agree with Mike ---- From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 2 16:46:41 2003 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:46:26 -0400 From: Michael StJohns Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: X-Sender: mstjohns@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com To: James M Galvin Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii References: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702155947.02787930@pop.mindspring.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <200306261420.h5QEKSZb024970@newdev.harvard.edu> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702155947.02787930@pop.mindspring.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Speaking as myself.. Yes the bodies do communicate, but they do not make their decisions in communication with the Nominating committee. Being "in communication with" implies an immediacy and constancy that is not appropriate. "communicates with" if there is an issue, a requirement for more information, or a rejection and at the need or request of the CB is appropriate - but its the CBs option (except of course for the rejection). There is and should be no requirement for the CB to communicate with the nomcom unless the CB desires more information. The nomcom provides the candidate, it does not then get to provide any more input unless the CB desires it. The nomcom does not get to try and sway, influence, cajole or otherwise contaminate the independence of the CBs deliberations. The nomcom sends the nomination and supporting documentation. The confirming bodies review that, ask questions if necessary, and then make their decision based on what they know at that point... they don't have a phone line open, the nomcom doesn't get a vote in the CB deliberations. There isn't even a requirement that the CB ask questions of the nomcom. The rest of this is all spelled out in the paragraphs below that clause. Either remove the clause, or use Brian's restatement. At 16:14 7/2/2003, James M Galvin wrote: >Speaking as editor: > > > >On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Michael StJohns wrote: > > *sigh* The confirming bodies do NOT make their decisions "in > communication with the nominating committee" Delete that phrase from > the first clause and make it read > > "The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and consent to > some, all, or none of the candidates." > >But they do communicate. They receive supporting documentation and they >are permitted to ask questions. In fact, there is an expectation of >communication. > >The "in communication with" was explicitly added to ensure that the >NOMCOM and the confirming body do not have a wall between them. To >remove the phrase you suggest is, in my opinion as editor, not an >editorial change. > >Jim > > > > At 15:10 7/2/2003, James M Galvin wrote: > >Speaking as editor: > > > > > >The change to which you are referring was made in the body of that > >particular rule. What Brian just did was notice that the rule itself > >was not changed. > > > >The complete rule now says: (from Section 3, Rule 7) > > > > > > 3. The confirming bodies review their respective candidates > and, > > in communication with the nominating committee, consent to > > some, all, or none of the candidates. > > > > The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates. > > > > The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB > > candidates. > > > > The confirming bodies conduct their review using all > > information and any means acceptable to them, including but > > not limited to the supporting information provided by the > > nominating committee, information known personally to > members > > of the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming > > body, the results of interactions within the confirming > > bodies, and the confirming bodies interpretation of what is > > in the best interests of the IETF community. > > > > If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the > > nominating committee with respect to those open positions is > > complete. > > > > If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming > > body are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate > > with the nominating committee both to explain the reason why > > all the candidates were not confirmed and to understand the > > nominating committee's rationale for its candidates. > > > > The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in > > which case the nominating committee must select alternate > > candidates for the rejected candidates. > > > > Any additional time required by the nominating committee > > should not exceed its maximum time allotment. > > > > > >This is what I understood the desired change to be. ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 2 20:45:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF00J04BEE3Z@eListX.com> (original mail from dee3@torque.pothole.com) ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:44:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF00J01BEA3T@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF00J01BEA3S@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:44:34 -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 <0HHF00FEOBE995@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:44:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by zydeco.netbusters.com (Postfix, from userid 513) id 6466BB63B9; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 00:43:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zydeco.netbusters.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630487EC1B for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:43:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:43:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Donald Eastlake 3rd Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-02.txt X-X-Sender: dee3@zydeco.netbusters.com To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: Content-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ObmDdMaxwdRvdAPnbOs7Gw)" List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --Boundary_(ID_ObmDdMaxwdRvdAPnbOs7Gw) Content-id: Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:31:01 -0400 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce: ; Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-02.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Publicly Verifiable Nomcom Random Selection Author(s) : D. Eastlake Filename : draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-02.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2003-7-2 This document describes a method for making random selections in such a way that the unbiased nature of the choice is publicly verifiable. As an example, the selection of the voting members of the IETF Nominations Committee from the pool of eligible volunteers is used. Similar techniques would be applicable to other cases. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-02.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-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-02.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-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-02.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_ObmDdMaxwdRvdAPnbOs7Gw) Content-id: Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_E0bKkYptBjwbz31Y3xNLbw)" Content-description: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --Boundary_(ID_E0bKkYptBjwbz31Y3xNLbw) Content-id: Content-type: MESSAGE/EXTERNAL-BODY; SERVER="mailserv@ietf.org"; ACCESS-TYPE=mail-server --Boundary_(ID_E0bKkYptBjwbz31Y3xNLbw) Content-id: Content-type: MESSAGE/EXTERNAL-BODY; DIRECTORY=internet-drafts; ACCESS-TYPE=anon-ftp; SITE=ftp.ietf.org; NAME=draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-02.txt --Boundary_(ID_E0bKkYptBjwbz31Y3xNLbw)-- --Boundary_(ID_ObmDdMaxwdRvdAPnbOs7Gw)-- From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 2 21:25:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF00K04D46A8@eListX.com> (original mail from dee3@torque.pothole.com) ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:21:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF00K01D46A6@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:21:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF00K01D45A5@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:21:41 -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 <0HHF00J0ZD44YB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:21:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by zydeco.netbusters.com (Postfix, from userid 513) id C4E86B63B9; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:20:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zydeco.netbusters.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B587EC1A for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:20:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:20:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Donald Eastlake 3rd Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702163522.0264d4f0@pop.mindspring.com> 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: On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Michael StJohns wrote: > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:46:26 -0400 > From: Michael StJohns > Subject: Re: WG Last Call > > Speaking as myself.. > > Yes the bodies do communicate, but they do not make their decisions in > communication with the Nominating committee. Being "in communication with" > implies an immediacy and constancy that is not appropriate. "communicates > with" if there is an issue, a requirement for more information, or a > rejection and at the need or request of the CB is appropriate - but its the > CBs option (except of course for the rejection). I agree that "in communication" is a misleading description of the CB deliberations. But see below... > There is and should be no requirement for the CB to communicate with the > nomcom unless the CB desires more information. The nomcom provides the > candidate, it does not then get to provide any more input unless the CB > desires it. The nomcom does not get to try and sway, influence, cajole or > otherwise contaminate the independence of the CBs deliberations. I also agree that there is no reason for any requirement that the CB communicate with the nomcom. But I can't see any reason to stop the nomcom, or any members thereof, or indeed any members of the IETF community from saying pretty much anything they want to a CB or to any member of the CB. Whatever benefit you see in the weird and unnatual isolation of CBs escapes me. The members of the CB are leaders immersed in the IETF community and all members of that community should feel free to communicate to them, including opinions that are favorable or unfavorable to the selection of individuals. The sort of draconian restriction on freedom of speech you propose seems to me entirely unjustified. > The nomcom sends the nomination and supporting documentation. The > confirming bodies review that, ask questions if necessary, and then make > their decision based on what they know at that point... they don't have a > phone line open, the nomcom doesn't get a vote in the CB > deliberations. There isn't even a requirement that the CB ask questions of > the nomcom. I generally agree except that I see no reason why a week or a day or ten minutes after their initial message to the CB, in the unlikely event the nomcom wants to send one or more additional messages, there is no reason to prohibit this. 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 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 2 21:35:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF00K04DD6GY@eListX.com> (original mail from rja@extremenetworks.com) ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF00K01DD5GW@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHF00K01DD4GP@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:27:04 -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 <0HHF00GBLDD3ZZ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:27:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.0.8.94]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC8D67104; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:25:51 -0400 From: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: <200307022048.h62KmY5C025333@newdev.harvard.edu> To: Scott Bradner Cc: galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com, mstjohns@mindspring.com, ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <4890AA1C-ACF5-11D7-A0E4-00039357A82A@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 Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 16:48 America/Montreal, Scott Bradner wrote: > I agree with Mike I agree with Mike as well. Ran From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jul 3 11:25:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00804FS2JW@eListX.com> (original mail from llynch@darkwing.uoregon.edu); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:16:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00801FS1JO@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:16:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00801FS0JM@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:16:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (darkwing.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.13]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HHG00456FRZH5@eListX.com>; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:16:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (llynch@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h63FFcDs017163; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:15:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (llynch@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id h63FFcdx017160; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:15:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:15:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucy E. Lynch" Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: To: James M Galvin Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: "The confirming bodies review their respective candidates, they may at their descretion communicate with the nominating committee, and then consent to some, all, or none of the candidates." ??? Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services Computing Center University of Oregon llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774/Cell: 912-7998 From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jul 3 11:35:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00904GKICS@eListX.com> (original mail from brian@hursley.ibm.com) ; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:33:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00901GKHCQ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00901GKGCP@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:33:52 -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 <0HHG0047CGKFHL@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.180]) by d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63FWMPO025080; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:32:23 +0200 Received: from ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.5) with SMTP id h63FVLHm276550; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:31:22 +0200 Received: from dhcp22-107.zurich.ibm.com by ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (AIX 4.3/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA42436 from ; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:31:13 +0200 Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:31:28 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: WG Last Call To: RJ Atkinson Cc: Scott Bradner , galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com, mstjohns@mindspring.com, ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3F044C50.51777235@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: <4890AA1C-ACF5-11D7-A0E4-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: RJ Atkinson wrote: > > On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 16:48 America/Montreal, Scott Bradner > wrote: > > I agree with Mike > > I agree with Mike as well. Me too, when I think about it Brian From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jul 3 11:45:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00904GS5T5@eListX.com> (original mail from joel@stevecrocker.com) ; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:38:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00901GS4T3@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00901GS4T2@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EXECDSL.COM (ns.execdsl.net [208.184.15.238]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HHG0047YGS3H5@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:38:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [64.254.114.114] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 4955708 for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:37:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:37:12 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: <3F044C50.51777235@hursley.ibm.com> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@mail.stevecrocker.com To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030703113558.02813d20@mail.stevecrocker.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii References: <4890AA1C-ACF5-11D7-A0E4-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Would it help any if "in communication with" were replaced with "communicating as necessary"? There was concern in the working group that the existing text left the impression of a wall between the two bodies. Yours, Joel At 05:31 PM 7/3/2003 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >RJ Atkinson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 16:48 America/Montreal, Scott Bradner > > wrote: > > > I agree with Mike > > > > I agree with Mike as well. > >Me too, when I think about it > > Brian > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jul 3 12:45:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00D04JQDHG@eListX.com> (original mail from harald@alvestrand.no); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:42:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00D01JQCH5@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:42:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00D01JQAH0@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:42:10 -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 <0HHG00C32JQ9RZ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:42:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no [192.168.1.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4DAB61A96; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:41:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:41:01 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: To: "Lucy E. Lynch" , James M Galvin Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <327660000.1057250461@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: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: --On torsdag, juli 03, 2003 08:15:38 -0700 "Lucy E. Lynch" wrote: > > "The confirming bodies review their respective candidates, they > may at their descretion communicate with the nominating committee, > and then consent to some, all, or none of the candidates." > this text works for me.... From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jul 3 17:15:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00304VZRYV@eListX.com> (original mail from galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00301VZQYT@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHG00301VZPYR@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HHG00M89VZO66@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:06:24 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: WG Last Call In-reply-to: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702163522.0264d4f0@pop.mindspring.com> To: Michael StJohns Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII References: <5.2.1.1.2.20030702155947.02787930@pop.mindspring.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <200306261420.h5QEKSZb024970@newdev.harvard.edu> <3EFDEB9A.DBB9C9FA@hursley.ibm.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702142454.047d12d0@pop.mindspring.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702155947.02787930@pop.mindspring.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20030702163522.0264d4f0@pop.mindspring.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Speaking as editor: If I correctly understand Mike's point, we need to separate the issue of any communication between the NOMCOM and the confirming body from the issue of the confirming body making its decision. Presuming that's correct we also need to recall that it has been decided by this group to explicitly indicate that the NOMCOM and the confirming body may communicate. So far we are intentionally leaving undefined the extent of the boundaries of that communication. The issue was focused on ensuring that both bodies knew they were to permitted to communicate during the confirming bodies decision process. Of course we can choose to change that but as editor it's not my place to make that change, i.e., I do no believe I can simply drop the phrase. With that mind, does the following phrasing address your concerns. Change from: 3. The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and, in communication with the nominating committee, consent to some, all, or none of the candidates. To: 3. The confirming bodies review their respective candidates, communicate at their discretion with the nominating committee, and consent to some, all, or none of the candidates. Thanks, Jim On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Michael StJohns wrote: Yes the bodies do communicate, but they do not make their decisions in communication with the Nominating committee. Being "in communication with" implies an immediacy and constancy that is not appropriate. "communicates with" if there is an issue, a requirement for more information, or a rejection and at the need or request of the CB is appropriate - but its the CBs option (except of course for the rejection). There is and should be no requirement for the CB to communicate with the nomcom unless the CB desires more information. The nomcom provides the candidate, it does not then get to provide any more input unless the CB desires it. The nomcom does not get to try and sway, influence, cajole or otherwise contaminate the independence of the CBs deliberations. The nomcom sends the nomination and supporting documentation. The confirming bodies review that, ask questions if necessary, and then make their decision based on what they know at that point... they don't have a phone line open, the nomcom doesn't get a vote in the CB deliberations. There isn't even a requirement that the CB ask questions of the nomcom. The rest of this is all spelled out in the paragraphs below that clause. Either remove the clause, or use Brian's restatement. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Fri Jul 4 05:45:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHH00504UOM4B@eListX.com> (original mail from brian@hursley.ibm.com) ; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 05:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHH00501UOL49@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Fri, 04 Jul 2003 05:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HHH00501UOL48@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Fri, 04 Jul 2003 05:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com [194.196.100.234]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HHH0034UUOJQK@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 05:36:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.180]) by d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h649Z476114158 for ; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:35:09 +0200 Received: from ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.5) with SMTP id h649Yhp8248518 for ; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:34:43 +0200 Received: from dhcp22-107.zurich.ibm.com by ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (AIX 4.3/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA27452 from ; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:34:42 +0200 Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:34:57 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: WG Last Call To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3F054A41.82285CDC@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: <327660000.1057250461@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > --On torsdag, juli 03, 2003 08:15:38 -0700 "Lucy E. Lynch" > wrote: > > > > > "The confirming bodies review their respective candidates, they > > may at their descretion communicate with the nominating committee, > > and then consent to some, all, or none of the candidates." > > > > this text works for me.... For me too. Brian From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 16 10:35:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400504G9RXP@eListX.com> (original mail from lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:29:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400501G9QXN@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:29:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400501G9PXM@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:29:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hawk.cs.ucla.edu (Hawk.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.128.21]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HI40047HG9O30@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:29:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [81.160.200.89] ([81.160.200.89]) by hawk.cs.ucla.edu (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.6/UCLACS-5.2) with ESMTP id h6GESPU13112 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:28:28 -0700 From: Lixia Zhang Subject: One more comments on the process draft To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: I sincerely apologize for this belated comment (only got on the mailing list yesterday) 15. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer. ........ Volunteers are expected to be familiar with the IETF processes and procedures, which are readily learned by active participation in a working group and especially by serving as a document editor or working group chair. The above is a step forward from the prev requirement (2 out of last 3 meetings). I assume the intention is to get volunteers with adequate familiarity with BOTH the IETF process AND the individual participants. I would like to suggest to make this step a little bigger. One could meet the above requirement by attending the last 3 meetings during one year period, which seems still a bit too short. And the expectation of being "familiar with the IETF processes" is a subjective one (in academic publication reviews, graduate students are most likely ones to consider themselves "expert in the subject area" :-) Given the current economical conditions, there can also be well qualified people who may have attended many IETF meetings previously but unable to attend as often in the last 2 years. So how about the following as a suggestion: 15. in order to volunteer, Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 4 of the last 8 IETF meetings and the first attendance must be at least 3 years prior to the date on which the solicitation for nominating committee volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community. Lixia From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 16 11:25:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400904ILXZ7@eListX.com> (original mail from sob@newdev.harvard.edu) ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:20:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400901ILWZ5@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:20:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400901ILVZ4@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:20:19 -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 <0HI4004GBILU30@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:20:18 -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 h6GFJ09n018005 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:19:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2/Submit) id h6GFJ0mt018004 for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:19:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:19:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Bradner Subject: Re: One more comments on the process draft To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <200307161519.h6GFJ0mt018004@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: fwiw - I think that this is a better concept than the N out of M by itself - I might tweak the numbers (3 out of 7 with the one at least 7 meetings ago) but I think this formulation would better ensure that nomcom members understood the IETF they would be selecting leaders for. Scott ------ So how about the following as a suggestion: 15. in order to volunteer, Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 4 of the last 8 IETF meetings and the first attendance must be at least 3 years prior to the date on which the solicitation for nominating committee volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 16 11:45:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400B04JCN67@eListX.com> (original mail from joel@stevecrocker.com) ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:36:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400B01JCM65@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:36:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400B01JCM64@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EXECDSL.COM (ns.execdsl.net [208.184.15.238]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HI4004LBJCL31@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [81.160.218.72] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 5041580 for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:35:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:34:08 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: One more comments on the process draft In-reply-to: <200307161519.h6GFJ0mt018004@newdev.harvard.edu> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@mail.stevecrocker.com To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030716113322.021cf108@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: How important is this? We NEED this document ASAP. Making a change like this is something I would like time to think about. Can we defer this to the next rev? Please? Yours, Joel At 11:19 AM 7/16/2003 -0400, Scott Bradner wrote: >fwiw - I think that this is a better concept than the N out of M by >itself - I might tweak the numbers (3 out of 7 with the one at least >7 meetings ago) but I think this formulation would better ensure >that nomcom members understood the IETF they would be selecting leaders for. > >Scott > >------ >So how about the following as a suggestion: > > 15. in order to volunteer, Members of the IETF community must > have attended at least 4 of the last 8 IETF meetings and the first > attendance must be at least 3 years prior to the date on which the > solicitation for nominating > committee volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF > community. > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 16 11:55:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400B04JTRO7@eListX.com> (original mail from dee3@torque.pothole.com) ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:46:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400B01JTQO5@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400B01JTPO4@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:46:37 -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 <0HI4004N7JTP30@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by zydeco.netbusters.com (Postfix, from userid 513) id D2647B63BC; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:45:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zydeco.netbusters.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10BC7EC1B; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:45:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Donald Eastlake 3rd Subject: Re: One more comments on the process draft In-reply-to: X-X-Sender: dee3@zydeco.netbusters.com To: Lixia Zhang Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Lixia, This was discussed very extensively, as it is every time this document is revised. After long arguments with lots of proposals, all of which should be in the archives, 3 out of the last 5 was decided on. I suggest it is too late to re-open this question. If the chair allows it to be re-opened, I suspect that many of the advocates of many of the previously advanced positions will speak up and demand that their suggestions be re-considered also. As you agree, there was rough consensus that the change is an improvement. It is not clear to me that we could reach rough consensus in a reasonable length of time that any other change is a greater improvement. Thanks, Donald ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Lixia Zhang wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:28:28 -0700 > From: Lixia Zhang > To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com > Subject: One more comments on the process draft > > I sincerely apologize for this belated comment (only got on the mailing list > yesterday) > > > 15. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of > the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer. > > ........ > Volunteers are expected to be familiar with the IETF processes > and procedures, which are readily learned by active > participation in a working group and especially by serving as a > document editor or working group chair. > > The above is a step forward from the prev requirement (2 out of last 3 > meetings). I assume the intention is to get volunteers with adequate > familiarity with BOTH the IETF process AND the individual participants. I > would like to suggest to make this step a little bigger. > > One could meet the above requirement by attending the last 3 meetings during > one year period, which seems still a bit too short. And the expectation of > being "familiar with the IETF processes" is a subjective one (in academic > publication reviews, graduate students are most likely ones to consider > themselves "expert in the subject area" :-) > > Given the current economical conditions, there can also be well qualified > people who may have attended many IETF meetings previously but unable to > attend as often in the last 2 years. > > So how about the following as a suggestion: > > 15. in order to volunteer, Members of the IETF community must > have attended at least 4 of the last 8 IETF meetings and the first > attendance must be at least 3 years prior to the date on which the > solicitation for nominating > committee volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF > community. > > Lixia > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: > From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 16 12:05:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400C04KA442@eListX.com> (original mail from lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400C01KA33R@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:56:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400C01KA23N@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:56:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hawk.cs.ucla.edu (Hawk.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.128.21]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HI400B0KKA1WB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [81.160.200.89] ([81.160.200.89]) by hawk.cs.ucla.edu (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.6/UCLACS-5.2) with ESMTP id h6GFt4U14018; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:55:11 -0700 From: Lixia Zhang Subject: Re: One more comments on the process draft In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20030716113322.021cf108@mail.stevecrocker.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: > How important is this? > We NEED this document ASAP. I did apologize for being late, didn=B9t I :-) > Making a change like this is something I would like time to think a= bout. > Can we defer this to the next rev? Please? Your choice. I can resend the same msg when the draft comes out for I= ETF last call, if it is too late for this group. Lixia > Yours, > Joel >=20 > At 11:19 AM 7/16/2003 -0400, Scott Bradner wrote: >=20 >> fwiw - I think that this is a better concept than the N out of M b= y >> itself - I might tweak the numbers (3 out of 7 with the one at lea= st >> 7 meetings ago) but I think this formulation would better ensure >> that nomcom members understood the IETF they would be selecting le= aders for. >>=20 >> Scott >>=20 >> ------ >> So how about the following as a suggestion: >>=20 >> 15. in order to volunteer, Members of the IETF community must >> have attended at least 4 of the last 8 IETF meetings and t= he first >> attendance must be at least 3 years prior to the date on w= hich the >> solicitation for nominating >> committee volunteers was submitted for distribution to the= IETF >> community. >>=20 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 Wed Jul 16 12:45:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400E04M690Y@eListX.com> (original mail from kre@munnari.OZ.AU); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:37:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400E01M680T@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400E01M660Q@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:37:18 -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 <0HI400C7MM5Z6Y@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:37:18 -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 h6GGZg804555; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:35:48 +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 h6GGZ7s08987; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:35:10 +0700 (ICT) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:35:07 +0700 From: Robert Elz Subject: Re: One more comments on the process draft In-reply-to: To: Lixia Zhang Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5745.1058373307@munnari.OZ.AU> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE References: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:55:11 -0700 From: Lixia Zhang Message-ID: | Your choice. I can resend the same msg when the draft comes out f= or IETF | last call, if it is too late for this group. That is probably the right thing to do. We don't get nearly enough documents pushed back to working groups for revision from IETF last call, and we should get more. This one may as well be one of them. Of course, that would mean even greater delays, but if that's the WG decision, that's fine. kre ps: I think Lixia's proposal (or Scott's revision of it) is a definit= e step forward. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Jul 16 12:55:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400E04MQRN1@eListX.com> (original mail from mstjohns@mindspring.com) ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400E01MQQMZ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:49:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400E01MQPMY@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net (stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.188]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HI400BAUMQOWB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [81.160.15.134] (helo=STJOHNS-LAPTOP2.mindspring.com) by stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19cpRt-0006x2-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:48:13 -0700 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:48:06 -0400 From: Michael StJohns Subject: Re: One more comments on the process draft In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20030716113322.021cf108@mail.stevecrocker.com> X-Sender: mstjohns@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com To: "Joel M. Halpern" , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <6.0.0.12.2.20030716124707.0200f1a0@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii X-ELNK-Trace: 9f6ded143da542dc9c7f779228e2f6aeda0071232e20db4d71a0fcb51d3f33b67632dca40f0775ce350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c References: <200307161519.h6GFJ0mt018004@newdev.harvard.edu> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Actually, unless someone is about to leave the IAB or IESG, we actually don't need this until the new Nomcom is ready to be selected. Let's get it right, rather than focusing on getting it now. Mike At 11:34 7/16/2003, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >How important is this? >We NEED this document ASAP. >Making a change like this is something I would like time to think about. >Can we defer this to the next rev? Please? >Yours, >Joel > >At 11:19 AM 7/16/2003 -0400, Scott Bradner wrote: > >>fwiw - I think that this is a better concept than the N out of M by >>itself - I might tweak the numbers (3 out of 7 with the one at least >>7 meetings ago) but I think this formulation would better ensure >>that nomcom members understood the IETF they would be selecting leaders for. >> >>Scott >> >>------ >>So how about the following as a suggestion: >> >> 15. in order to volunteer, Members of the IETF community must >> have attended at least 4 of the last 8 IETF meetings and the first >> attendance must be at least 3 years prior to the date on which the >> solicitation for nominating >> committee volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF >> community. >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>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 Jul 16 17:15:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400404YZAF9@eListX.com> (original mail from rja@extremenetworks.com) ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:13:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400401YZAF7@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:13:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI400401YZ9F6@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:13:57 -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 <0HI4001BYYZ80M@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:13:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.255.51.53]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D28F67105; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:40:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:09:12 -0400 From: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: One more comments on the process draft In-reply-to: <6.0.0.12.2.20030716124707.0200f1a0@pop.mindspring.com> To: Michael StJohns 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 Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, at 12:48 America/Montreal, Michael StJohns wrote: > Actually, unless someone is about to leave the IAB or IESG, we > actually don't need this until the new Nomcom is ready to be selected. > Let's get it right, rather than focusing on getting it now. > > Mike Agree. This document really is important to get correct. Ran From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jul 17 03:55:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI500804SAXNG@eListX.com> (original mail from joel@stevecrocker.com) ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:47:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI500801SAWNE@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI500801SAUND@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EXECDSL.COM (ns.execdsl.net [208.184.15.238]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HI5006LGSAT35@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [81.160.218.72] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 5043528; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:45:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:45:56 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: One more comments on the process draft In-reply-to: X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@mail.stevecrocker.com To: RJ Atkinson , Michael StJohns Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030717034116.018dd680@mail.stevecrocker.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii References: <6.0.0.12.2.20030716124707.0200f1a0@pop.mindspring.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: We appear to be trying to get a perfect document. Given the nature of the nomcom process, there is probably no such thing as a perfect process for it. We had the discussion about what the conditions for nomcom volunteers ought to be. The proposal is not a small change. It is a major philosophical change in the way we look at nomcom participants and eligibility. While it is technically still within the working group process to change what we have written, we better have a very good reason to do so. At the moment, we are going to be lucky to get this document out of the IESG by August 15. The new nomcom chair (whomsoever as that may be) will be issueing the call for volunteers before that. If we put much delay on this document, the nomcom chair will have to make the selection before we have a new document. Since the old document does not permit using different rules that are still pending, that would mean the old rules would still apply. Do we really want to cause an effective 1 year slip in getting better rules? We can go back after the document is approved and start another round if we really think we need to make additional changes. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 05:09 PM 7/16/2003 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote: >On Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, at 12:48 America/Montreal, Michael StJohns wrote: > >>Actually, unless someone is about to leave the IAB or IESG, we actually >>don't need this until the new Nomcom is ready to be selected. Let's get >>it right, rather than focusing on getting it now. >> >>Mike > >Agree. >This document really is important to get correct. > >Ran > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jul 17 04:55:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI500B04VDZZ0@eListX.com> (original mail from brian@hursley.ibm.com) ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:54:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI500B01VDYYY@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:53:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI500B01VDWYX@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:53:57 -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 <0HI500953VDVH8@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:53:56 -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 h6H8qN9d056400 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:52:25 +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 ESMTP id h6H8qKtC277452 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:52:21 +0200 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine05.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.45]) by ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21510 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:52:14 +0200 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:52:09 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: One more comments on the process draft To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3F1663B9.7FC4108C@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: <6.0.0.12.2.20030716124707.0200f1a0@pop.mindspring.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030717034116.018dd680@mail.stevecrocker.com> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: I agree that this issue was thoroughly debated and closed. I also think the current formulation is OK. While I have great sympathy with people who want to participate in the IETF but have very limited travel budgets, I think *recent* f2f interaction is very important as a Nomcom qualification. So my hum is for no change to the draft. Brian "Joel M. Halpern" wrote: > > We appear to be trying to get a perfect document. > Given the nature of the nomcom process, there is probably no such thing as > a perfect process for it. > > We had the discussion about what the conditions for nomcom volunteers ought > to be. > The proposal is not a small change. It is a major philosophical change in > the way we look at nomcom participants and eligibility. > > While it is technically still within the working group process to change > what we have written, we better have a very good reason to do so. > At the moment, we are going to be lucky to get this document out of the > IESG by August 15. The new nomcom chair (whomsoever as that may be) will > be issueing the call for volunteers before that. If we put much delay on > this document, the nomcom chair will have to make the selection before we > have a new document. Since the old document does not permit using > different rules that are still pending, that would mean the old rules would > still apply. > > Do we really want to cause an effective 1 year slip in getting better > rules? We can go back after the document is approved and start another > round if we really think we need to make additional changes. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > At 05:09 PM 7/16/2003 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > >On Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, at 12:48 America/Montreal, Michael StJohns wrote: > > > >>Actually, unless someone is about to leave the IAB or IESG, we actually > >>don't need this until the new Nomcom is ready to be selected. Let's get > >>it right, rather than focusing on getting it now. > >> > >>Mike > > > >Agree. > >This document really is important to get correct. > > > >Ran From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jul 17 05:25:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI500D04WHD1M@eListX.com> (original mail from lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:17:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI500D01WHC1K@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:17:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI500D01WHB1J@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:17:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hawk.cs.ucla.edu (Hawk.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.128.21]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HI50098LWHAH8@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:17:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [81.160.200.89] ([81.160.200.89]) by hawk.cs.ucla.edu (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.6/UCLACS-5.2) with ESMTP id h6H9GCU24980; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:16:20 -0700 From: Lixia Zhang Subject: Re: One more comments on the process draft In-reply-to: <3F1663B9.7FC4108C@hursley.ibm.com> To: Brian E Carpenter , ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: > I agree that this issue was thoroughly debated and closed. > > I also think the current formulation is OK. While I have great > sympathy with people who want to participate in the IETF but have > very limited travel budgets, I think *recent* f2f interaction is very > important as a Nomcom qualification. Full agreement. My concern is a different one: one year is too short a period to both gain an adequate understanding of the IETF process and, perhaps more importantly, to get to know individual participants well enough for nomcom purpose. Over the years I have talked to many new comers, a common response is a feeling of somewhat lost in the sea for the first couple times. I've also served on nomcom twice myself, and my observation was that junior people (not in age but in IETF participation) who did not know much about the candidates deferred to a few strong voices of those who know better. We want the nomcom results coming from all 10 voting members (at least majority of them for each candidate), not a small subset plus nodding heads. But I MUST apologize again that my comments were late. As I said I would be happy to raise them during IETF last call if this group feels it's too late to consider. > So my hum is for no change to the draft. > > Brian From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jul 17 05:35:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI500D04WYEH0@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@apocalypse.org); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:27:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI500D01WYCGY@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:27:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HI500D01WYCGX@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:27:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.ietf57.telekom.at (smtp.ietf57.telekom.at [81.160.16.8]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HI5009AJWYAH8@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from apocalypse.org ([81.160.131.243]) by smtp.ietf57.telekom.at (8.11.7+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h6H9QRk20128 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:26:28 +0200 (MEST) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:26:25 +0200 From: avri Subject: Last Call Closed 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: Just wanted to announce that the Last Call on draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt has ended. I will, in the next few days, send out a synopsis of the issues, resolutions and list of still open issues. In terms of the last issue submitted on nomcom member qualifications, I will need to look through the discussions we had to see whether this is a new take on the issue and offers new information. To this end there will need to be a summarization of those discussions for the list. This topic was already discussed extensively earlier in the WG's history. I do not recall if this perspective was already represented and rejected by the WG. We also need to make sure that the document does express the concept that has WG and IETF consensus. And we need to finish as quickly as possible as the next Nomcom is about to be selected - based on the current of the 2 out of 3 rule. I also expect that due to some of the issues already brought up we will need to have a second WG Last call on the changes. a. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jul 24 03:15:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HII00F04P9031@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:10:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HII00F01P8Z2Z@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:10:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HII00F01P8Z2Y@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:10:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HII0097VP8YTJ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:10:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=acm.org ident=avri) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19fa6a-0004O4-I2 for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:01:36 +0000 Resent-date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:01:26 +0900 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:23:51 +0900 Resent-from: Avri Doria From: Avri Doria Subject: Draft of WG last call issues and resolutions Resent-to: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com To: nomcom-dt Resent-message-id: 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: The following is a list of the issues that were raised during the Working Group Last Call 1 and resolutions. Since the Nomcom document is all about the rules and the language for their descriptions, we will have another 1 week last call on any of the wording changes made because of the resolutions from this last call. As soon as the next version of the draft is available, I will announce that last call. Thanks, a. ---------- WGLC1-1: Sec 4 (8) Difficulty parsing the language. Resolution: Editorial change - new language to clarify ---------- WGLC1-2: Issue of whether a current IAB/IESG MUST resign when appointed to another job Resolution: While there is an oral tradition recommending against this, there was no consensus for making a rule against it. Language in oral tradition clarified to explicitly recommend against the practice. History: Resolution of previous discussion in point 4.3 of: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200210/msg00002.html ---------- WGLC1-3: Sec 5 (8) Text should read that 'the prior year's chair or the person sitting in his or her place' may request a recall of the current chair. Resolution: Definition of Prior year's chair extended to include person taking the prior year's chair's seat. ---------- WGLC1-3: Sec 5 (11) Term "IETF Community" is ambiguous resolution: Term has been in document RFC for several versions and last call is not the best time to define new language. Issue not considered a show stopper by commenter. No change to document. WGLC1-5:Sec 5 (15) Sentence restructure requested: write 'candidate rejected by the confirming body' instead of 'rejected candidates'. Redundancy in written rule is problematic. Resolution: Editorial change - fix language. ---------- WGLC1-6:Sec 1. Language of when the draft takes effect very unclear and not specific as to how it is approved. Resolution: Sentence removed. ---------- WGLC1-7: Sec 3 (7-3) Language left in regarding Confirming Bodies consulting with Nomcom despite consensus against such language. Resolution: As this was an oversight, language will be corrected as suggested on the list. "The confirming bodies review their respective candidates, they may at their descretion communicate with the nominating committee, and then consent to some, all, or none of the candidates." ---------- WGLC1-8: Sec 4 (15) comment that 3 out of 5 still leaves the possibility that inexperienced attendees will end up on the nomcom and need to be brought up to speed at the expense of the process. A recommendation was made that would extend the rule to at least 4 of the last 8 IETF meetings and add the requirements that the first attendance must be at least 3 years prior to the date on which the solicitation for nominating. Resolution: This issue and many different variants for allowing for more experience and longevity in the organization were discussed at length earlier on the list and in the face to face meeting in Atlanta. The consensus after discussing many possibilities was to extend the model to the proposed 3 out of 5 model plus the note about the expectation that volunteers be familiar with the IETF and processes and procedures. As the issue was discussed in detail and consensus was reached, it will not be reopened at this time. History: The issues as discussed on the list were summed up in: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200211/msg00007.html The discussion was then taken into IETF55 were there was a unanimous hum in favor of the 3/5 rule. Subsequent to this, the hum was reported on the list and there were extensive discussions about the number of eligible candidates following the the 2/3 and 3/5 rules as this had been brought up as a question during IETF55. These was consensus on the list for the change to the 3/5 rule. The change was made in draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt, and was announced on the list in: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200302/msg00000.html Until the last call comment, there was no further discussion of this issue. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Jul 24 05:05:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HII00K04U8QCT@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:58:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HII00K01U8NCP@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HII00K01U8MCO@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:57:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HII009FUU8KRA@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=acm.org ident=avri) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19fbto-000AJT-FI for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:56:32 +0000 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:56:26 +0900 From: Avri Doria Subject: Resend - WG Last Call Issues 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: The following is a list of the issues that were raised during the Working Group Last Call 1 and resolutions. Since the Nomcom document is all about the rules and the language for their descriptions, we will have another 1 week last call on any of the wording changes made because of the resolutions from this last call. As soon as the next version of the draft is available, I will announce that last call. Thanks, a. ---------- WGLC1-1: Sec 4 (8) Difficulty parsing the language. Resolution: Editorial change - new language to clarify ---------- WGLC1-2: Issue of whether a current IAB/IESG MUST resign when appointed to another job Resolution: While there is an oral tradition recommending against this, there was no consensus for making a rule against it. Language in oral tradition clarified to explicitly recommend against the practice. History: Resolution of previous discussion in point 4.3 of: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200210/msg00002.html ---------- WGLC1-3: Sec 5 (8) Text should read that 'the prior year's chair or the person sitting in his or her place' may request a recall of the current chair. Resolution: Definition of Prior year's chair extended to include person taking the prior year's chair's seat. ---------- WGLC1-3: Sec 5 (11) Term "IETF Community" is ambiguous resolution: Term has been in document RFC for several versions and last call is not the best time to define new language. Issue not considered a show stopper by commenter. No change to document. WGLC1-5:Sec 5 (15) Sentence restructure requested: write 'candidate rejected by the confirming body' instead of 'rejected candidates'. Redundancy in written rule is problematic. Resolution: Editorial change - fix language. ---------- WGLC1-6:Sec 1. Language of when the draft takes effect very unclear and not specific as to how it is approved. Resolution: Sentence removed. ---------- WGLC1-7: Sec 3 (7-3) Language left in regarding Confirming Bodies consulting with Nomcom despite consensus against such language. Resolution: As this was an oversight, language will be corrected as suggested on the list. "The confirming bodies review their respective candidates, they may at their descretion communicate with the nominating committee, and then consent to some, all, or none of the candidates." ---------- WGLC1-8: Sec 4 (15) comment that 3 out of 5 still leaves the possibility that inexperienced attendees will end up on the nomcom and need to be brought up to speed at the expense of the process. A recommendation was made that would extend the rule to at least 4 of the last 8 IETF meetings and add the requirements that the first attendance must be at least 3 years prior to the date on which the solicitation for nominating. Resolution: This issue and many different variants for allowing for more experience and longevity in the organization were discussed at length earlier on the list and in the face to face meeting in Atlanta. The consensus after discussing many possibilities was to extend the model to the proposed 3 out of 5 model plus the note about the expectation that volunteers be familiar with the IETF and processes and procedures. As the issue was discussed in detail and consensus was reached, it will not be reopened at this time. History: The issues as discussed on the list were summed up in: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200211/msg00007.html The discussion was then taken into IETF55 were there was a unanimous hum in favor of the 3/5 rule. Subsequent to this, the hum was reported on the list and there were extensive discussions about the number of eligible candidates following the the 2/3 and 3/5 rules as this had been brought up as a question during IETF55. These was consensus on the list for the change to the 3/5 rule. The change was made in draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt, and was announced on the list in: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200302/msg00000.html Until the last call comment, there was no further discussion of this issue. From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Jul 28 05:55:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: from ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HIQ00F04BEP2I@eListX.com> (original mail from brc@zurich.ibm.com); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HIQ00F01BEN2G@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:51:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HIQ00F01BEN2F@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@elist.lists.elistx.com (ORCPT ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:51:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com [194.196.100.236]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HIQ00E0HBELZR@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:51:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.196]) by d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6S9oTGh189676 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:50:29 +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 ESMTP id h6S9oSOD240762 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:50:29 +0200 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (dhcp22-107.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.22.107]) by ochsehorn.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA43212 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:50:27 +0200 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:50:28 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: Resend - WG Last Call Issues To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <3F24F1E4.5A575C05@zurich.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: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: I'm happy with all these choices. Brian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK Avri Doria wrote: > > The following is a list of the issues that were raised during the > Working Group Last Call 1 and resolutions.