From barryleiba@gmail.com Wed Jul 25 15:12:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2F321F86DC for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:12:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Efoh5AQxBGBZ for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1FFA21F86E0 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so2105104pbc.31 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:12:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=m9EoGza823btHRLxHx7DggeYbdU2s5CmfoToKw/DwJY=; b=G+Knj1W55DKQJb8NSKMM0viXbIrpauCLexkHm5BNVyqOiM1Y9G5q1gSl6Gbb5RsLFc 4LaKp/pj3XZ9tODpKJGm4hcczM7JaSJnoZzs/LLjMEkz+tD6Qypg2r2vXutHnBu0RpUL RNFmv4a/sktbjuvSpKIHsi6Symu5iSgmDZBCkSGEdEdW0uC00u15++H7BAvMWQVO9NUR RYcJfSTRYwVIbuP84gy5HSftUomaNFWaaScvn5Ju+wXHkmCzPp3n2r8is6V+O2ITONsc rbxEzkQqDquK0bdj8vDV4KQXKS+ufXBn80lwnUx0NFfaydgDE9j4ZTflQlMOmfXWPvLM SfUQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.231.40 with SMTP id td8mr57818186pbc.150.1343254375471; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.68.241.103 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:12:55 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7IPOwrjfT-3aO90kYFV6YKP70NE Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b339b73e49a8b04c5aec73c Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:12:56 -0000 --047d7b339b73e49a8b04c5aec73c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I intend to submit the following I-D on Monday, when the I-D embargo lifts. ----------------------------------- Title: Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee Eligibility of IETF Leadership RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG "may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee". Since that document was written the IAOC was formed, and that body is not covered by RFC 3777. There is also uncertainty about whether ex-officio members and liaisons are included as "sitting members". This document clarifies those situations. The following paragraph replaces RFC 3777, Section 4, paragraph 15 in its entirety. 15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sitting members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including members in ex-officio and liaison positions, may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee. ----------------------------------- I'm looking for early comments here, before I post the I-D and bring it to ietf@ietf.org. I will particularly note that I am *ONLY* interested in dealing with THIS ONE ISSUE. I think this is straightforward and represents the intent of IETF 3777, and that it's only a clarification. I will NOT entertain comments that other things in 3777 should be addressed here. Are there any objections to this clarification? Does anyone think it should be done differently? Barry --047d7b339b73e49a8b04c5aec73c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I intend to submit the followin= g I-D on Monday, when the I-D embargo lifts.

-----= ------------------------------
Title: Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee
Eligibility=A0of IETF Leadership

RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members&q= uot;=A0of=A0the IAB and IESG
"may not volunteer to serve on the nominating=A0= committee".
Since that document was written the IAOC wa= s formed,=A0and that
body is not=A0covered= by RFC 3777. =A0There is also uncertainty=A0about<= /span>
whether ex-officio members=A0and liaisons are included as "sitting
members". =A0This document clarifies = those situations.

The following paragraph replaces RFC 3777, Section 4, p= aragraph 15
in its entirety.

15. =A0Memb= ers of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sitting
members= of=A0the IAB, the IESG, and the IAO= C, including members
in ex-officio and liaison posit= ions,=A0may not volunteer to = serve on the
nomina= ting committee.
------------= -----------------------

I'm looking for early = comments here, before I post the I-D and bring it to ietf@ietf.org. =A0I will particularly note that I am *ONLY* = interested in dealing with THIS ONE ISSUE. =A0I think this is straightforwa= rd and represents the intent of IETF 3777, and that it's only a clarifi= cation. =A0I will NOT entertain comments that other things in 3777 should b= e addressed here.

Are there any objections to this clarification? =A0Does= anyone think it should be done differently?

Barry=
--047d7b339b73e49a8b04c5aec73c-- From spencer@wonderhamster.org Wed Jul 25 15:34:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E47121F8606 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:34:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.065 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.535, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JWBVWKtzgfLH for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF49821F85EF for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.107.30.61] ([128.107.30.61]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Md2yY-1TCFEm2emI-00HlkO; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:34:12 -0400 Message-ID: <50107460.2020406@wonderhamster.org> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:34:08 -0500 From: Spencer Dawkins User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:LKlW1ODCRopCUuv3GjygavtjhS3MZk9eTkKKIDzjl94 wFF66kbeftcTjoGt/jKtdGZJ41sAW4vsllM+wAzNAPhv239x7D Oo/spGB46rZSF7Rr2RlqgnQNFxpxQXotgNg72ClMXBKHzV7lJp Z5Te4GyuSLUHh6GX4/CkyCw8ngGlypMRgW/5ap/i8u6KRlGig9 f8/4TsEI0pkMy9aEGgPc3k6XMmK5NCqJ8vTvNvJ87bAsvEZKC/ xjQyz742SF7aC1HcPxkMm7GMHOJX280oOaWv+fmTqtWuQYEveb GBobhZM818h8SYaxgw8TDPXy3DT6TkzbH/sYsfcEfZFg+NDkhr VU5hb8hkWlU/RNYnYR0HmVXnI/XAHGI+tBZVm6h/E Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:34:13 -0000 On 7/25/2012 5:12 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > I intend to submit the following I-D on Monday, when the I-D embargo lifts. > > ----------------------------------- > Title: Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee > Eligibility of IETF Leadership > > RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG > "may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee". > Since that document was written the IAOC was formed, and that > body is not covered by RFC 3777. There is also uncertainty about > whether ex-officio members and liaisons are included as "sitting > members". This document clarifies those situations. > > The following paragraph replaces RFC 3777, Section 4, paragraph 15 > in its entirety. > > 15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sitting > members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including members > in ex-officio and liaison positions, may not volunteer to serve on the > nominating committee. Without reference to whether I think this is a good idea or not, I wonder "why liaisons?", and "what about people like secretaries, scribes, etc?". The second could be outside the scope that you set, but explaining the rationale for this change could be helpful. Thanks, Spencer >----------------------------------- > > I'm looking for early comments here, before I post the I-D and bring it to > ietf@ietf.org. I will particularly note that I am *ONLY* interested in > dealing with THIS ONE ISSUE. I think this is straightforward and > represents the intent of IETF 3777, and that it's only a clarification. I > will NOT entertain comments that other things in 3777 should be addressed > here. > > Are there any objections to this clarification? Does anyone think it > should be done differently? > > Barry > > > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Wed Jul 25 15:54:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED3F21F8679 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:54:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qduLSHJJp-B7 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:54:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1460921F8675 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so962748lag.31 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:54:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OEd7ecGXXMI6Dsy6cofoFUmtolM6vLthfof121yhj0E=; b=ViVK2TETy/QSVyZ8wBKTNWyurx5c3uLrjJRTtzSwxJ6aVYl7TTrOTsB4j7JBvuAjf7 LCszwSHIVjDRr1mEsTrJkRss/XorHOiRhSHxGAVytS201/6suA2mxgDCYksFi68X09Ps o6+h+7ew01eXBQ4XAHvL5f+NO85d+0LlfNRx3ELe5UJ0uUage3P2zuCyfYRbMY2MSp1M qd3btENTODx+vSEMsgKLBTx+qz/TwJ/9ebKF1zzidyKWZ+HUQUn0Y0DkcEQswAgKEVCr hRAqqWsqZZeT9jdR6mNO+GfWVtLpZsyYGXTKqBGSfg+ZhuQDwNgyD7mGDMFzK+pebHkX p6wg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.44.163 with SMTP id f3mr12405880lbm.59.1343256872032; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.17.133 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:54:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <50107460.2020406@wonderhamster.org> References: <50107460.2020406@wonderhamster.org> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:54:31 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: oqCYIY5wELmoY2P8ZHfwR0mpjAY Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Spencer Dawkins Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec554d23eb31b2304c5af5c3f Cc: "ietf-nomcom@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:54:34 -0000 --bcaec554d23eb31b2304c5af5c3f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Title: Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee >> Eligibility of IETF Leadership >> >> RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG >> "may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee". >> Since that document was written the IAOC was formed, and that >> body is not covered by RFC 3777. There is also uncertainty about >> whether ex-officio members and liaisons are included as "sitting >> members". This document clarifies those situations. >> >> The following paragraph replaces RFC 3777, Section 4, paragraph 15 >> in its entirety. >> >> 15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sitting >> members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including members >> in ex-officio and liaison positions, may not volunteer to serve on the >> nominating committee. >> > > Without reference to whether I think this is a good idea or not, I wonder > "why liaisons?", and "what about people like secretaries, scribes, etc?". > Thanks for the comment, and you're certainly right about explaining the rationale. I believe the intent of paragraph 15 is to say, basically, "The current IETF leadership is ineligible to be on the NomCom." Liaisons might not belong there -- some of them are liaisons across the leadership organizations, so they're covered anyway. The others -- liaisons from RFC Editor, IANA, and ISOC -- arguably *should* be eligible. Scribes, as well, should probably be eligible. The IAB Executive Director is listed as an ex-officio positions, so it's covered. Nothing so far bars the Secretariat, though I can't imagine any of them volunteering. Should they be added to the list? Barry --bcaec554d23eb31b2304c5af5c3f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Title: Update= to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee
Eligibility of IETF Leadership

RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG
"may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee".
Since that document was written the IAOC was formed, and that
body is not covered by RFC 3777. =A0There is also uncertainty about
whether ex-officio members and liaisons are included as "sitting
members". =A0This document clarifies those situations.

The following paragraph replaces RFC 3777, Section 4, paragraph 15
in its entirety.

15. =A0Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sitting
members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including members
in ex-officio and liaison positions, may not volunteer to serve on the
nominating committee.

Without reference to whether I think this is a good idea or not, I wonder &= quot;why liaisons?", and "what about people like secretaries, scr= ibes, etc?".

Thanks for the comment, and you're cer= tainly right about explaining the rationale.

I bel= ieve the intent of paragraph 15 is to say, basically, "The current IET= F leadership is ineligible to be on the NomCom." =A0Liaisons might not= belong there -- some of them are liaisons across the leadership organizati= ons, so they're covered anyway. =A0The others -- liaisons from RFC Edit= or, IANA, and ISOC -- arguably *should* be eligible. =A0Scribes, as well, s= hould probably be eligible. =A0The IAB Executive Director is listed as an e= x-officio positions, so it's covered. =A0Nothing so far bars the Secret= ariat, though I can't imagine any of them volunteering. =A0Should they = be added to the list?

Barry
--bcaec554d23eb31b2304c5af5c3f-- From john-ietf@jck.com Wed Jul 25 16:30:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5439F21F8663 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:30:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Bx8133RSLTT for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C2A21F8655 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SuAwN-000Dvs-1P; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:24:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:29:59 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Spencer Dawkins , ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <50107460.2020406@wonderhamster.org> References: <50107460.2020406@wonderhamster.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:30:22 -0000 --On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 17:34 -0500 Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> 15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and >> sitting members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including >> members in ex-officio and liaison positions, may not >> volunteer to serve on the nominating committee. > > Without reference to whether I think this is a good idea or > not, I wonder "why liaisons?", and "what about people like > secretaries, scribes, etc?". Barry, Let me agree with Spencer and carry that thought at bit further. IMO, the more people there are on the Nomcom who have a clue about what goes on in the IETF leadership -- what the positions and expectations actually are and how things work as well as how individuals perform -- the better off we are. Maybe others disagree with that view but, to the degree that the position is reasonable, we should be designing things to exclude as few people as possible. Working backwards from that principle, we exclude voting members of the IESG and IAB because they may be a little bit too affected by Nomcom decisions, because the Nomcom is replacing half of their positions anyway, and, in the IAB's case, because it is a confirming body. But the liaisons don't participate in any of that -- in my experience, the IAB excludes them from meetings and discussions associated with candidates. Extrapolating to the IAOC, people appointed by Nomcom or by the IAB or IESG should probably be excluded, but it is less clear to me that liaisons and people appointed by, e.g., the ISOC BoT should be excluded. The ISOC BoT probably has to be excluded on the grounds that they are a confirming body. Conversely, I wonder whether people who are employees of the IETF, the Secretariat, and/or contractors to the IASA ought to be excluded on the grounds of a possible financial interest in the people the Nomcom appoints. I think the answer is probably "no, at least most of them are ok", but it deserves consideration. In particular, should folks like the IAD, RSE, IAB Exec Dir, and IETF Exec Dir be Nomcom-eligible if they are not excluded by other rules? Net, I would really encourage you to draw the exclusion perimeter as narrowly as possible consistent with actual conflicts of roles so as to increase, however slightly, the likelihood of having high-clue people on the Nomcom. Finally, please beware of unintended side-effects. The "Nomcom-eligible" rule in 3777 had the effect of prohibiting sitting members of the IESG and IAB from participating in recalls. Perhaps that is what we want, although I don't think so. But, IIR, the issue wasn't noticed sufficiently that the community could have a serious conversation about the tradeoffs. If the effect of a change to 3777 is to move recalls even further away from "feasible mechanism and realistic control", we shouldn't do that by accident. I would therefore argue that your draft should either address the recall issue as a tradeoff or should change the language of 3777 so that eligibility for recall participation includes those who are not Nomcom-eligible by virtue of the positions they hold but who would be eligible if they did not hold those positions. john From galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com Wed Jul 25 16:39:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F99E11E8087 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:39:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1LQ9aAEd3G2R for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0A221F858F for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31965) with ESMTP id <0M7Q00B61POONE@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:38:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:40:12 -0400 From: Jim Galvin In-reply-to: To: Barry Leiba , ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Message-id: <6DE74E107F8A127A5EBF93F9@James-Galvin-2.local> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-disposition: inline References: Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:39:59 -0000 -- On July 25, 2012 6:12:55 PM -0400 Barry Leiba=20 wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying=20 NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership -- > RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members"=C2=A0of=C2=A0the IAB and = IESG > "may not volunteer to serve on the nominating=C2=A0committee".Since = that > document was written the IAOC was formed,=C2=A0and that > body is not=C2=A0covered by RFC 3777. =C2=A0There is also = uncertainty=C2=A0about > whether ex-officio members=C2=A0and liaisons are included as "sitting > members". =C2=A0This document clarifies those situations. > > > The following paragraph replaces RFC 3777, Section 4, paragraph 15 > in its entirety. > > > 15. =C2=A0Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and = sitting > members of=C2=A0the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including members > in ex-officio and liaison positions,=C2=A0may not volunteer to serve = on > the > nominating committee. > ----------------------------------- > > Are there any objections to this clarification? =C2=A0Does anyone = think > it should be done differently? I have no issue with the inclusion of the IAOC in the list,=20 conceptually. I would say that's exactly the right thing. There is at = least one other place where the "list" should be amended, the=20 definition of a "sitting member" in Section 2. I don't recall offhand=20 if there are other places this change should be made. Perhaps it might be better to provide a clarifying principle rather=20 than a change to this one specific paragraph. I'm suggesting something = like the following: The IAOC is to be included in any list in the document that includes=20 all of the ISOC Board, IESG, and the IAB. More generally, should we refer to the IASA? I don't think so but for=20 completeness I thought it was worth mentioning. Even more generally, should refer to any recognized body of the IETF=20 defined today or that may come in to existence in the future? Okay, so = maybe this is going too far. :-) However, I do not agree that ex-officio and liaison positions should be = excluded, i.e., included in your list. Even if you want to exclude them, I would say the right way to make=20 this change is to alter the definition of "sitting member", which I=20 presume is the source of the perceived ambiguity. The definitions in Section 2 define "sitting member" as follows. sitting member: A person who is currently serving a term of membership in the IESG, IAB or ISOC Board of Trustees. I concede that I can see where someone could interpret that either way=20 with respect to liaisons and ex-officio positions. To avoid this=20 ambiguity I would suggest adding one of the following two phrases to=20 the end of that definition: a. "...Trustees, excluding persons serving in a liaison or ex-officio=20 role that is not otherwise listed." b. "...Trustees, including persons serving in a liaison or ex-officio=20 role." In general, I wouldn't want to exclude liaisons and ex-officio=20 positions, unless they are already covered by some other rule. For=20 example, the IESG liaison to the IAB should be excluded but then=20 they're already excluded because they are on the IESG. I would not=20 however exclude the IRTF or RFC Editor liaisons. Jim From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Wed Jul 25 17:14:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49BCD21F869C for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:14:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K1Fl39R0xUkG for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6594521F8692 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so995283lag.31 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:14:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=oLYNZDxv5xStqqmJ6nZrw5sBN+ljf7czUM2OuWQAl5I=; b=o62mV7Pafk8eIVJORW2YTDtMAw8/CHZd/c3RG9QTuuMUbgOu0zGKauxl/kAIy4bC1i 3Wm7Kzdq4/ohkvGLrm033Mzr7RWJVRMy7bPFVzbKkEoyoJ2k4OOJYxHbO7SiW20UMUEL aQ0lkGu5cVlBjcs2r5DIiu5JYA6XJcDp8V0q35vaZMeleITcvoiB9OIgeHsC3EuXnl+1 YEvLds2ZhJx2W4v1TjSyw+jD7KzfXadLF0HLlOz2WKDoqOhKz4gepnhJweZ7nUfpOLuV c69voLwlG/k/L9d9KUf/iR2jV3P7IWy3eTwLzgO68x2HSf5eXG9k/qOe5AIa31294ymj 22yA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.44.163 with SMTP id f3mr12481338lbm.59.1343261673077; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:14:33 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.17.133 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:14:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6DE74E107F8A127A5EBF93F9@James-Galvin-2.local> References: <6DE74E107F8A127A5EBF93F9@James-Galvin-2.local> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:14:32 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ftr2AALTF1B0r-3a86XxAX9HQ74 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:14:35 -0000 I agree with John's general statement that we should exclude as few people as necessary to do what we intend, and that we should think about who we're excluding. We can't fix this by changing the definition of "sitting member", rather than Section 4, paragraph 15: "sitting member" is used in a number of places in the document to clearly identify NomCom-appointed positions. For instance, look at the definition of "Member Recall", and check Section 3, bullets 3, 4, 7, and 8. The questions that John and Jim bring up are key, so: - I think it's clearly in the intent of 3777 to exclude the actual current leadership. - John quibbles about the IAOC members who were not appointed by the NomCom. I think that doesn't fly: all voting members of the IAOC are part of the current IETF leadership, regardless of who appointed them. And I don't think it's reasonable, according to how we mean to do things, to have a sitting member of the IAOC be on the body that appoints another member to the IAOC. - There seems to be consensus, at least of those who've commented so far, that liaisons shouldn't be excluded. - As far as I can tell, the positions that remain in question are the ex-officio ones that aren't otherwise excluded: the IAD, the IRTF Chair and the IAB Executive Director. Those are all covered by the "ex-officio" clause. Jim would prefer not to exclude these, while I think it's the intent of 3777 to do so. - There remains the question of whether people from the Secretariat, the RFC Editor, and IANA should be excluded. All have "bosses" in NomCom-appointed positions, and would, I think, have a significant conflict of interest in serving. - I've gotten separate input suggesting that paragraph 15 be clear that we're talking about voting members of the NomCom, because there are liaisons appointed from sitting members of these groups. I don't think that's necessary -- I think it's already clear from the overall context -- but if others think we should say, I'll do so. Updating my proposal accordingly: ----------------------------------- Title: Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee Eligibility of IETF Leadership RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG "may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee". Since that document was written the IAOC was formed, and that body is not covered by RFC 3777. There is also uncertainty about whether ex-officio members and liaisons are included as "sitting members". This document clarifies those situations. The following paragraph replaces RFC 3777, Section 4, paragraph 15 in its entirety. 15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sitting members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including members in ex-officio positions, and not including liaisons, may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee. People serving in the Secretariat, the RFC Editor, and IANA may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee. ----------------------------------- Barry From henk.uijterwaal@gmail.com Thu Jul 26 01:20:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D5421F8734 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:20:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ieHAv-Y1AqYc for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B0921F86D1 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaaa11 with SMTP id a11so134294eaa.31 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:20:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZBY79/SR2M6Wmsh8T4GQBXBEEX57WCMfsCusNhdHGWo=; b=rX/Cj8gtpcXdwkJz6LQh1aOsO6gKby78nhu+BfdrLpZTm7CUftsRsxwMxNYYPJZR32 //O2TWA0gAjDTI8SC8M7TUWdyjEbKbbIC6rspnO3qKzPvo52JAKCyx4N7KfJ9mFKWP67 md9/A38ERZtVmAc1xjRm6IXm8X7mYZr1L7Rgq8NFtmGaCIJ9mmz6JqviaSSlLhkPhuri xUgmJSAwkL7AP1AL4PdGcmsveSVPDQBn8vFd7jkDvnmWs/V81TL7QWEnlO+I98PubouY ETYa52RWFhQ6OtQm2k2wm9nudPWaChc9mry4Vlpraz1OJoZFZcJUTBo1Dx/bDvw9ua3v 1qtQ== Received: by 10.14.180.67 with SMTP id i43mr3033955eem.23.1343290824833; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local ([2001:980:1203:1:e6ce:8fff:fe11:e7a8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u48sm6561077eep.7.2012.07.26.01.20.22 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5010FDC3.2080402@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:20:19 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org References: <6DE74E107F8A127A5EBF93F9@James-Galvin-2.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: henk@uijterwaal.nl List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:20:28 -0000 I agree with the proposal. > - I think it's clearly in the intent of 3777 to exclude the actual > current leadership. In order to make this future-proof, wouldn't it be better to say that anybody currently serving on a body for which the Nomcom appoints its members, is not eligible to serve on the Nomcom, rather than try to specify this in detail. (Or if you want to add the detail, at least include the general principle). > - There seems to be consensus, at least of those who've commented so > far, that liaisons shouldn't be excluded. Agree. > - There remains the question of whether people from the Secretariat, > the RFC Editor, and IANA should be excluded. All have "bosses" in > NomCom-appointed positions, and would, I think, have a significant > conflict of interest in serving. I'd extend this to contractors and the like, for example the legal council to the IAOC, people hired by the IAB/IESG to investigate a problem, etc. > The following paragraph replaces RFC 3777, Section 4, paragraph 15 > in its entirety. > > 15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sitting > members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including members > in ex-officio positions, and not including liaisons, may not volunteer > to serve on the nominating committee. People serving in the > Secretariat, the RFC Editor, and IANA may not volunteer to > serve on the nominating committee. 15. As a general principle, people currently serving on any of the bodies for which the NOMCOM appoints its members, may not serve on the NOMCOM, regardless of who appointed them to this body. Also excluded from serving are people with a employer-employee relation, or another business relation to any of those bodies. At the time of writing, this means that Members of the ISOC BoT, sitting members of the IAB, IESG and IAOC (including members in ex-officio positions, but excluding liaisons), people serving in the secretariat, IANA, the RFC-editor and all contractors may not volunteer. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From kre@munnari.OZ.AU Thu Jul 26 02:20:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3929D21F8738 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:20:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pm-JkqEolwO9 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jade.coe.psu.ac.th (unknown [IPv6:2001:3c8:9009:181::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E66321F8759 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jade.coe.psu.ac.th (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by jade.coe.psu.ac.th with ESMTP id q6Q9KbQN021325 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:20:37 +0700 (ICT) Received: (from kre@localhost) by jade.coe.psu.ac.th (8.14.5/8.13.3) id q6Q9Kajr003670 for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:20:36 +0700 (ICT) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:20:36 +0700 (ICT) From: Robert Elz Message-Id: <201207260920.q6Q9Kajr003670@jade.coe.psu.ac.th> To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5010FDC3.2080402@gmail.com> References: , <6DE74E107F8A127A5EBF93F9@James-Galvin-2.local>, , <5010FDC3.2080402@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:20:44 -0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:20:19 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org | 15. As a general principle, people currently serving on any of the | bodies for which the NOMCOM appoints its members, may not serve | on the NOMCOM, regardless of who appointed them to this body. Also | excluded from serving are people with a employer-employee relation, | or another business relation to any of those bodies. I know it isn't what you intended, but that language could be read as implying that anyone who supplies routers (or any other network, or other, service) used by the IAB/IAOC/... or the secretariat, or rfc-editor (etc), and perhaps anyone who works at a hotel where an IETF meeting is to be held, or maybe even for the chain that owns the hotel, (and lots more people) are excluded. Don't try and be too general and all encompassing, and resist the temptation to solve problems that don't actually exist. I suspect that the langaue proposed to which you were reacting is closer to what would be wanted - except it is unnecessarily wacky to say that classes of people "may not volunteer to serve" when what it really means is "are not eligible to be a voting member of". kre From bertietf@bwijnen.net Thu Jul 26 02:42:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D744D21F8655 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:42:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qCHCFB-VpXNH for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:42:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1341]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0E121F85EA for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:42:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net ([193.0.23.5]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SuKaP-0008QJ-Rj for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:42:27 +0200 Received: from dog.ripe.net ([193.0.1.217] helo=BWMACBOOK.local) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SuKaP-0007Z9-Kx for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:42:25 +0200 Message-ID: <50111101.7090705@bwijnen.net> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:42:25 +0200 From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org References: , <6DE74E107F8A127A5EBF93F9@James-Galvin-2.local>, , <5010FDC3.2080402@gmail.com> <201207260920.q6Q9Kajr003670@jade.coe.psu.ac.th> In-Reply-To: <201207260920.q6Q9Kajr003670@jade.coe.psu.ac.th> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux Mail Server 5.6.48/RELEASE, bases: 20120425 #7816066, check: 20120726 clean X-RIPE-Spam-Level: -- X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-RIPE-Signature: 86ab03e524994f79ca2c75a176445dd47b032d081b1bf49917da48a076e71c5b Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:42:30 -0000 Probably s/serving/serving as voting members or chair/ ?? otherwise, it might be ambiguous as to liaisons from those other bodies. They do "serve" on the nomcom, although in another (well-)defined role. Bert > | 15. As a general principle, people currently serving on any of the > | bodies for which the NOMCOM appoints its members, may not serve > | on the NOMCOM, regardless of who appointed them to this body. Also > | excluded from serving are people with a employer-employee relation, > | or another business relation to any of those bodies. From john-ietf@jck.com Thu Jul 26 05:02:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D43A21F8700 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:02:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wZ3jqudljclH for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A2821F86F9 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SuMfr-000FyM-BE; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 07:56:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:01:44 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Barry Leiba , ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Message-ID: <66505BA3293079368B539E20@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: References: <6DE74E107F8A127A5EBF93F9@James-Galvin-2.local> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:02:00 -0000 --On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 20:14 -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: > I agree with John's general statement that we should exclude > as few people as necessary to do what we intend, and that we > should think about who we're excluding. > > We can't fix this by changing the definition of "sitting > member", rather than Section 4, paragraph 15: "sitting member" > is used in a number of places in the document to clearly > identify NomCom-appointed positions. For instance, look at > the definition of "Member Recall", and check Section 3, > bullets 3, 4, 7, and 8. > > The questions that John and Jim bring up are key, so: > > - I think it's clearly in the intent of 3777 to exclude the > actual current leadership. > > - John quibbles about the IAOC members who were not appointed > by the NomCom. I think that doesn't fly: all voting members > of the IAOC are part of the current IETF leadership, > regardless of who appointed them. And I don't think it's > reasonable, according to how we mean to do things, to have a > sitting member of the IAOC be on the body that appoints > another member to the IAOC. I don't have any problem with that exclusion -- I just thought it was important that we ask the question about what we want. >... > - As far as I can tell, the positions that remain in question > are the ex-officio ones that aren't otherwise excluded: the > IAD, the IRTF Chair and the IAB Executive Director. Those are > all covered by the "ex-officio" clause. Jim would prefer not > to exclude these, while I think it's the intent of 3777 to do > so. Unless our goal is to minimize the potential for clues on the Nomcom, the question I would ask is whether there is a compelling reason to exclude them. If we are going to revise 3777, I think its original intent is less interesting than the question of what best serves the community's needs today. If we do want to be paranoid about this and/or minimize clues, then we should really exclude WG Chairs since Nomcom selections of IESG members have a fairly direct effect on them. > - There remains the question of whether people from the > Secretariat, the RFC Editor, and IANA should be excluded. All > have "bosses" in NomCom-appointed positions, and would, I > think, have a significant conflict of interest in serving. So do WG Chairs and Secretaries, particularly if we have any suspicions that IESG members might be unduly biased for or against making appointments from their own companies. > - I've gotten separate input suggesting that paragraph 15 be > clear that we're talking about voting members of the NomCom, > because there are liaisons appointed from sitting members of > these groups. I don't think that's necessary -- I think it's > already clear from the overall context -- but if others think > we should say, I'll do so. I think it is clear in the existing documents. Certainly I'm not aware of any question about it in the last eight years. >... best, john From galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com Thu Jul 26 05:20:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A7721F875D for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:20:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IAoXMd7DbDMs for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84A2C21F8755 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31965) with ESMTP id <0M7R00K4COW9SB@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:19:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:20:49 -0400 From: Jim Galvin In-reply-to: To: Barry Leiba , ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Message-id: <37BB2EDF96CE0CC48C683C4D@James-Galvin-2.local> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:20:35 -0000 So I've now come around to your intent and agree with it. I have included some comments on the proposed words inline below. -- On July 25, 2012 8:14:32 PM -0400 Barry Leiba wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership -- > 15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sitting > members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including members > in ex-officio positions, and not including liaisons, may not volunteer > to serve on the nominating committee. People serving in the > Secretariat, the RFC Editor, and IANA may not volunteer to > serve on the nominating committee. First a more substantive comment. I think we should include an explanatory paragraph that explicitly clears up the ambiguity of liaisons that are also members of bodies we want to exclude. While it's a detail as along as we're making a change we might as well be complete. So, I suggest adding the following: It is the intent of this rule that the exclusion list be applied first and be given priority over the inclusion list. For example, a person who is a liaison from one body to another body would be excluded from volunteering. Second an important style comment. The original document is written such that each rule is a single sentence. While I acknowledge there are two rules with a second sentence I would argue those are explanatory and not an integral part of the rule. I propose the following editorial change: 15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees; sitting members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC; people serving in the Secretariat, the RFC Editor, and the IANA; and in all cases people serving in ex-officio positions but not including liaisons may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee. Jim From fred@cisco.com Thu Jul 26 05:34:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BE421F8758 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:34:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.430, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GpEpogIJDLfD for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD57321F8711 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:34:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=8538; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1343306080; x=1344515680; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=mIP1rcJy7H50c8+Z2WtaPYdVZfmj/aqk7g+YS/HKjCc=; b=TX3Y6K9mWP/tK8BX10zUHnxPVV4NxDJLMjkGYlluxpIlioj39ZmZgwf6 ekvcylE3unXNjYLBhqlL+mhLRHu+TL1MpBLVaxRT0CDLwsR4U/i7Xce/H D6czNUcZH4ojmTjnk3MYCJBTiMe2m6YrO7F86Lk6JW/RvApOeH3c/N+Y4 A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EACE4EVCtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABFuTuBB4IhAQEEAQEBDwFbCxACAQg/BycLFBECBA4FIodrC5suoEAEi0+GFGADlUiOJ4Fmgl8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,659,1336348800"; d="scan'208,217";a="105523394" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2012 12:34:40 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6QCYeX7032720 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:34:40 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.118]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 07:34:39 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Barry Leiba Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership Thread-Index: AQHNarKqdCIfYy6KREawxAXzziOokZc71HOA Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:35:11 +0000 Message-ID: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.87.54] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19064.005 x-tm-as-result: No--35.817000-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_376F17E21E15496AB43B905B0E1278D2ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:34:42 -0000 --_000_376F17E21E15496AB43B905B0E1278D2ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It should also discuss the RSOC, which is an activity of the IAB. I suspect= that you could generalize this discussion to include all such boards. On Jul 25, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: I intend to submit the following I-D on Monday, when the I-D embargo lifts. ----------------------------------- Title: Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee Eligibility of IETF Leadership RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG "may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee". Since that document was written the IAOC was formed, and that body is not covered by RFC 3777. There is also uncertainty about whether ex-officio members and liaisons are included as "sitting members". This document clarifies those situations. The following paragraph replaces RFC 3777, Section 4, paragraph 15 in its entirety. 15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sitting members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including members in ex-officio and liaison positions, may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee. ----------------------------------- I'm looking for early comments here, before I post the I-D and bring it to = ietf@ietf.org. I will particularly note that I am *O= NLY* interested in dealing with THIS ONE ISSUE. I think this is straightfo= rward and represents the intent of IETF 3777, and that it's only a clarific= ation. I will NOT entertain comments that other things in 3777 should be a= ddressed here. Are there any objections to this clarification? Does anyone think it shoul= d be done differently? Barry _______________________________________________ ietf-nomcom mailing list ietf-nomcom@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom ---------------------------------------------------- The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. - Marshall McLuhan --_000_376F17E21E15496AB43B905B0E1278D2ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <738FE2D498EFF447BD57FEBEA4C16086@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It should also discuss the RSOC, which is an activity of the IAB. I suspect= that you could generalize this discussion to include all such boards.

On Jul 25, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

I intend to submit the following I-D on Monday, when the I-D embargo l= ifts.

-----------------------------------
Title: Update to RFC 3777 = to Clarify Nominating Committee
Eligibility of IETF L= eadership

RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG
"may not volunteer to serve on the nominating <= /span>committee".
Since that document was written= the IAOC was formed, and that
body is not covered by RFC 3777.  There is also uncertainty about
whether ex-officio members and liaisons are included as "sitting=
members".  This = document clarifies those situations.

The following paragraph replaces RFC 3777, Section 4, paragraph 15
in its entirety.

15.  Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sittin= g
members of the IAB, t= he IESG, and the IAOC, including members
in ex-officio and liaison = positions, may not = volunteer to serve on the
nominating committee.
-----------------------------------

I'm looking for early comments here, before I post the I-D and bring i= t to ietf@ietf.org.  I will particularly note that I am *ONLY* interest= ed in dealing with THIS ONE ISSUE.  I think this is straightforward an= d represents the intent of IETF 3777, and that it's only a clarification. &= nbsp;I will NOT entertain comments that other things in 3777 should be addressed here.

Are there any objections to this clarification?  Does anyone thin= k it should be done differently?

Barry
_______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing list
ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

----------------------------------------------------
The = ;ignorance of how to use new=  = knowledge stockpiles exponentially. 
   - Marshall McLuhan

--_000_376F17E21E15496AB43B905B0E1278D2ciscocom_-- From john-ietf@jck.com Thu Jul 26 06:11:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A5D21F8760 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:11:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fdJmnFyitR2V for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F5521F875E for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:11:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SuNla-000G2T-9q; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:06:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:11:43 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: "Fred Baker (fred)" , Barry Leiba Message-ID: <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:11:59 -0000 --On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:35 +0000 "Fred Baker (fred)" wrote: > It should also discuss the RSOC, which is an activity of the > IAB. I suspect that you could generalize this discussion to > include all such boards. Indeed. With the IAB's relatively new "Program" model, there are a number of subsidiary groups that could be discussed. The discussion should probably be generic because the IAB can create such groups at will. The RSOC is different from the others because it is institutionalized (in RFC 6635) but there is no particular reason why others couldn't be similarly established in the future. I wonder whether such groups are, wrt the Nomcom, really different from IETF Area or topic-based Directorates, the WG Chairs as a group, or the members of various management and oversight committees (e.g., the RFC Editor and IANA ones). Most of the members of the latter are excluded by other rules, but perhaps a few are not. Again, I think the bottom line is that, if we are looking for a way to see how many people we can exclude, there is no shortage of opportunities. One could even make a case for excluding former IAB and IESG members. If, on the other hand, our goals include a broad and clueful a Nomcom pool as possible, we should exclude only those people/roles for which there is a compelling case for exclusion, not simply membership in some body for which a tenuous claim of improper influence could be made. Other than having a strong preference for a Nomcom whose members have clues, I'm not suggesting that I know exactly where to draw the line, only that we be really careful about exclusions. john From lars@netapp.com Thu Jul 26 08:57:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E43621F85F9 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.429 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.170, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0UhuF8tvzGe1 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A39521F85F1 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:57:07 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,659,1336374000"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="668819196" Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2012 08:56:52 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.77.34]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q6QFupmf028486; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.13]) by vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.34]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:56:51 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: John C Klensin Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership Thread-Index: AQHNarKsPZraRBnOak6zesPrlihZ9Jc79iWAgAAKNYCAAC4hgA== Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:56:50 +0000 Message-ID: <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.116] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2D628644-13EA-41D7-9165-249A6F9210E1"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Barry Leiba , "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:57:08 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2D628644-13EA-41D7-9165-249A6F9210E1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, a lot of good points on this thread. I'm leaning towards agreeing with = those that want to maximize inclusiveness and participation in the = NomCom. Let me throw out a strawman proposal to see what people think: "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position, you are = not eligible to serve on the NomCom." Everyone else that is otherwise eligible can serve. This rule obviously = allows ex officio members, IAB functions, liaisons and others to serve. = (Full disclosure: I would be affected by this rule.)=20 Lars= --Apple-Mail=_2D628644-13EA-41D7-9165-249A6F9210E1 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMQDCCBUow ggQyoAMCAQICEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMTEyMTAwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEyMDkyMzU5NTlaMIIBDTEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEeMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYPbGFyc0BuZXRhcHAuY29t MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAokrhJTcXt6J/VEpZOicLoguBlYTjXP9v Ze4HuuhXnURUS8YouAfgaqA0zYbt5yd6fh4PBMdAaEWr5yJyHuFykXlrCumjUWSpLuqTS2A+pt4q cZaAQk9iLDN/UVd3SpkUuvWbxXlqzG7/BSqa3VNObBzCmyh+V7aXxri+30CT//DSsNRC4VFy6sn6 dMgSaFenXLwe/FBwY0qTMfICT1PrrX6Sw1S8OfH9rykLlZXbmfkFExxQngp1DJH9xMHeODHGbCv/ ty5gdxMOrLe+vENxFEcy1YQWBZd1kNL4UObugF8A/jE/s+Oa3H1VFH8ghqZTdqGDysVxmtKHuNFx 6jIBSQIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcXATAqMCgG CCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIFoDAdBgNV HSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDovL2luZGMx ZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3JsMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBA7q6tR92qpd7xo7VBsrOfGCWzoxIVfTc7t0RhB/Oz/+c3lnhYnNScIuKN JmyZvznmVxqB9BJ72+NkvmdB/hnILSBTRawL2tyLo9PkBtN0nRt4gS6wjpWnD8G83hlJLE7r25jk 7HkRev61dTIXsANFpJKF02C4XSoDfEzNV6MpuEvHvcgHCqMrlwWwfKc7+NoDnE8PBuRzwSXvlD5L mswCY2iiOsd7ImNO4OzTCxETvKTDu92+FTIbRJJpYjVNv1UF7e3w9Kq65BkZJErUH19beUeQl0Wh 2BJQE6/15rQyCnP0iJ/Nmx2/kI6M0PWunEsI6FMs0MbosreaWGHlQmomMIIG7jCCBdagAwIBAgIQ cRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoT DlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTowOAYDVQQL EzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5MUUwQwYD VQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9y aXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3Jr MTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAo YykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBD bGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOC AQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6ZvgSU6Lb9UB 0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHsEnMhjfXc MM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO4YM/d/mZ //6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSyriMGZSal J1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCCArUwNAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wEgYDVR0T AQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVy aXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9w Y2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgwVhYJaW1h Z2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDovL2xvZ28u dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQcml2YXRl TGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYDVR0jBIHp MIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEg UHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaEVIULAM+v OEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlMJBq6WaSH O3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKvYLMVirOV nDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDRyxTWcVib vtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy+kgOZY5J yNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/wYIxggSL MIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBD QSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDcyNjE1NTY1MFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFDcA 1Q+wIeBknKEkCEVXgtAGYbQ9MIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAF/LJwh8 WTgpMcWhvi9FT7ot0LW9AfZKoNlbDXq7DxoyHf5mP1M3qzovpx8h4dS/BJG1ThFOm8rtfeS57PIA kR6z6W+UxBTpnhdbWUdOwXRJLD7l/UEH0dYDcqdP3H/Z95nQa829tMjXws8pyNPI6ir0CYrrY+Ms wMCOQlrC52SYVKxDBNeBlU0AsEaYy5nnbQ7vucAEFG4AjoIh0V5BiPNVRXo5G3eLz79ti1HM4Cxl D9a59t22jR4E4MNiK+TkOn/I5F+Ti9gfcnJtNr0I+eX/j3OmVn9nufMP1BYbDWNzuH90YzB8TKgE i2jXd/WbAaUk9NW51asZ/G7yhQir5Z0AAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_2D628644-13EA-41D7-9165-249A6F9210E1-- From john-ietf@jck.com Thu Jul 26 09:25:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD4ED21F84F2 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:25:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hnpAje3ey3VH for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:25:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3526D21F8496 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:25:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SuQmO-000GEM-JF; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:19:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:24:46 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: "Eggert, Lars" Message-ID: <4E38CFFDCBE2BA8EEC216705@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: Barry Leiba , "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:25:02 -0000 --On Thursday, July 26, 2012 15:56 +0000 "Eggert, Lars" wrote: > Hi, > > a lot of good points on this thread. I'm leaning towards > agreeing with those that want to maximize inclusiveness and > participation in the NomCom. Let me throw out a strawman > proposal to see what people think: > > "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position, > you are not eligible to serve on the NomCom." > > Everyone else that is otherwise eligible can serve. This rule > obviously allows ex officio members, IAB functions, liaisons > and others to serve. (Full disclosure: I would be affected by > this rule.) Lars, my instinct would be to extend that to include "serving as part of a group that has confirmation responsibility for Nomcom appointees". The confirmation process is intended to acts as a check against Nomcoms that have missed important information or otherwise gone off the rails. Overlapping membership (in addition to the one IAB->Nomcom liaison) would weaken that check. A confirming body restriction would eliminate members of the ISOC BoT (the IETF-appointed Board Members might meet the attendance requirements as would the ISOC President/CEO). If we are clear that "IAB as confirming body" is different from "IAB members", it wouldn't exclude any IAB participants not excluded by your rule other than, depending on current IAB practice, the Exec Dir. Otherwise, I like the idea, both because it seems minimally exclusive and because it avoids our having to iterate through organizations and their membership categories. john From fred@cisco.com Thu Jul 26 09:50:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847B221F85DF for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.186 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.413, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sW0hNxLirYob for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C8B21F85B8 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=872; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1343321402; x=1344531002; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=ml3nGvb8fduPVu/AIwf2h56iFb7eyIVxPFgYFCpjocs=; b=eTv6nNyB+MB0Ygi7VBp/eqE/PGq1kWy4pkjpjhOhaF30VYuWdYSE00CH PcRQ9aXj8tms1Of9PK2jD7J7vK1bJLFI/4u/g3DH2LNQrZel0EJLTIxd4 uh+ojFZL3spZCsDtxdo5GjEdodk4iVbZq/W+3n7rUTMQJuJBXYeXP/dyl 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAORzEVCtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABFuTmBB4IgAQEBAwESASc/BQsCAQg2EDIlAgQOJ4dlBpt5oEqLT4YUYAOVSI4ngWaCXw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,660,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="102656114" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2012 16:50:02 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6QGo14x001339 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:50:01 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.118]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:50:01 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: John C Klensin Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership Thread-Index: AQHNarKqdCIfYy6KREawxAXzziOokZc71HOAgAAKYICAADz6AA== Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:50:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.154.212.53] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19064.005 x-tm-as-result: No--24.668400-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7E48A0875D5296458F828A428F8071A0@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Barry Leiba , "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:50:03 -0000 On Jul 26, 2012, at 6:11 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > Again, I think the bottom line is that, if we are looking for a > way to see how many people we can exclude, there is no shortage > of opportunities.=20 I don't take the objective as being that; I see it as making sure that the = I* bodies are not only not self-instantiating, but are seen as non-self-ins= tantiating. Whether or not someone THINKS I shouldn't be on the nomcom, I h= ave not volunteered for the nomcom since 1996, and the reason is that *I* d= on't think a person in my position (take your pick of the ones I have had) = should be on the nomcom except as a liaison. But if we are agreeing togethe= r to such viewpoints and documenting them, this might be one to mention. If you want to take the IAB programs as "directorates", works for me. I mig= ht feel more free to volunteer.= From lars@netapp.com Thu Jul 26 09:50:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1821F21F861B for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.434 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2utxV2V0f11X for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7150D21F85D8 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50:07 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,660,1336374000"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="668837382" Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2012 09:50:07 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.77.34]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q6QGo7Hg021843; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.13]) by vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.34]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50:06 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: John C Klensin Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership Thread-Index: AQHNarKsPZraRBnOak6zesPrlihZ9Jc79iWAgAAKNYCAAC4hgIAAB88AgAAHEQA= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:50:05 +0000 Message-ID: <4618AD27-7E65-459A-A380-1839CD4DBB60@netapp.com> References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> <4E38CFFDCBE2BA8EEC216705@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <4E38CFFDCBE2BA8EEC216705@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.116] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F3A158D1-7791-47C8-971C-39E54B3728E6"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Barry Leiba , "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:50:08 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F3A158D1-7791-47C8-971C-39E54B3728E6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:24, John C Klensin wrote: > Lars, my instinct would be to extend that to include "serving as > part of a group that has confirmation responsibility for Nomcom > appointees". it's a good clarification. But it doesn't really change the criteria = itself, does it? At least for the IAB, ex officio members and liaisons = are not part of IAB "executive sessions", where e.g. the NomCom = confirmation or the selection of the IAB chair are handled. (I just want = to make sure that I understand you correctly.) > The confirmation process is intended to acts as a > check against Nomcoms that have missed important information or > otherwise gone off the rails. Overlapping membership (in > addition to the one IAB->Nomcom liaison) would weaken that > check. A confirming body restriction would eliminate members of > the ISOC BoT (the IETF-appointed Board Members might meet the > attendance requirements as would the ISOC President/CEO). If we > are clear that "IAB as confirming body" is different from "IAB > members", it wouldn't exclude any IAB participants not excluded > by your rule other than, depending on current IAB practice, the > Exec Dir. =20 Yes, that makes sense.=20 The exec director is also an ex officio member, like the IRTF chair, and = those are the only two such members. Both of us are not present during = executive sessions. Lars > Otherwise, I like the idea, both because it seems minimally > exclusive and because it avoids our having to iterate through > organizations and their membership categories. >=20 > john >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_F3A158D1-7791-47C8-971C-39E54B3728E6 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMQDCCBUow ggQyoAMCAQICEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMTEyMTAwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEyMDkyMzU5NTlaMIIBDTEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEeMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYPbGFyc0BuZXRhcHAuY29t MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAokrhJTcXt6J/VEpZOicLoguBlYTjXP9v Ze4HuuhXnURUS8YouAfgaqA0zYbt5yd6fh4PBMdAaEWr5yJyHuFykXlrCumjUWSpLuqTS2A+pt4q cZaAQk9iLDN/UVd3SpkUuvWbxXlqzG7/BSqa3VNObBzCmyh+V7aXxri+30CT//DSsNRC4VFy6sn6 dMgSaFenXLwe/FBwY0qTMfICT1PrrX6Sw1S8OfH9rykLlZXbmfkFExxQngp1DJH9xMHeODHGbCv/ ty5gdxMOrLe+vENxFEcy1YQWBZd1kNL4UObugF8A/jE/s+Oa3H1VFH8ghqZTdqGDysVxmtKHuNFx 6jIBSQIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcXATAqMCgG CCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIFoDAdBgNV HSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDovL2luZGMx ZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3JsMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBA7q6tR92qpd7xo7VBsrOfGCWzoxIVfTc7t0RhB/Oz/+c3lnhYnNScIuKN JmyZvznmVxqB9BJ72+NkvmdB/hnILSBTRawL2tyLo9PkBtN0nRt4gS6wjpWnD8G83hlJLE7r25jk 7HkRev61dTIXsANFpJKF02C4XSoDfEzNV6MpuEvHvcgHCqMrlwWwfKc7+NoDnE8PBuRzwSXvlD5L mswCY2iiOsd7ImNO4OzTCxETvKTDu92+FTIbRJJpYjVNv1UF7e3w9Kq65BkZJErUH19beUeQl0Wh 2BJQE6/15rQyCnP0iJ/Nmx2/kI6M0PWunEsI6FMs0MbosreaWGHlQmomMIIG7jCCBdagAwIBAgIQ cRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoT DlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTowOAYDVQQL EzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5MUUwQwYD VQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9y aXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3Jr MTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAo YykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBD bGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOC AQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6ZvgSU6Lb9UB 0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHsEnMhjfXc MM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO4YM/d/mZ //6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSyriMGZSal J1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCCArUwNAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wEgYDVR0T AQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVy aXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9w Y2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgwVhYJaW1h Z2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDovL2xvZ28u dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQcml2YXRl TGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYDVR0jBIHp MIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEg UHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaEVIULAM+v OEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlMJBq6WaSH O3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKvYLMVirOV nDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDRyxTWcVib vtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy+kgOZY5J yNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/wYIxggSL MIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBD QSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDcyNjE2NTAwNVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFGXr fWeREXye4sInS4xjwOt1zeL3MIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAHaiRuoq dGzP87Hyj2e0uhlvC3qMc8PMr/aM+m3wcdcUt1VvO2pV1TBkaM1uLzbKyI898ZAshCxU0S9zrr4R sNFUiIFus4/fzqlizIwXWdewsUwvsmq+JNVC625g55r4sE0Pk6j6IUf+Ihh8gjU0uyNRNuNjEFgZ aNQA2HphUpkhpnfdnR0cj+IFQUL+iH5jCaypPlSxF7323znbXeyPHAvzQOcEaHWmZAk1N+brt5rg PRtmIPJOKf/YA31B/uR52cMrZlbgi/A2sQgb23UngEh+f4uDq6qV/Z/C1docpnhlE/fPg2eSD7J/ E62aUtEFa4nj5IkJg2bh+NsrjffJdq4AAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_F3A158D1-7791-47C8-971C-39E54B3728E6-- From fred@cisco.com Thu Jul 26 09:50:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296FD21F8617 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.396, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ah2KRWJzf-hl for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C4621F8620 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=660; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1343321440; x=1344531040; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=/lw45SduBeDwztj295Yaikk1Sf7Qy9CgQ9p4+eaPN1I=; b=krrEcj1An9TUK9b6/nd9iaPcOl+0wPlgurCkaavMc/ye9wpnKSn1JIaE 0QoWGZGK5aIPm3Brc84qgtQKaiDqT6+I/eVgwq5J27pOgr18GMLTHEHve 1EBiIw4rvSiQ4T2NxVSkmz8Oh4NtvEujORAUm2OJp9RLy08w6+GvkNYKA c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EACp1EVCtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABFuTmBB4IgAQEBAwESASc/BQsCAQg2EDIlAgQOJ4dlBpt3oEqLT4YUYAOVSI4ngWaCXw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,660,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="105675696" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2012 16:50:40 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6QGoeTZ023103 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:50:40 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.118]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:50:39 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: "Eggert, Lars" Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership Thread-Index: AQHNarKqdCIfYy6KREawxAXzziOokZc71HOAgAAKYICAAC4iAIAADweA Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:51:10 +0000 Message-ID: <9FE8CFD8-B518-49A8-957B-C5C9114EE0EA@cisco.com> References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> In-Reply-To: <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.154.212.53] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19064.005 x-tm-as-result: No--28.406600-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4DABFB4DDCCF77409F9C5DBA456BB669@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Barry Leiba , "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:50:41 -0000 On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi, >=20 > a lot of good points on this thread. I'm leaning towards agreeing with th= ose that want to maximize inclusiveness and participation in the NomCom. Le= t me throw out a strawman proposal to see what people think: >=20 > "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position, you are not= eligible to serve on the NomCom." That might be a good rule. > Everyone else that is otherwise eligible can serve. This rule obviously a= llows ex officio members, IAB functions, liaisons and others to serve. (Ful= l disclosure: I would be affected by this rule.)=20 >=20 > Lars From john-ietf@jck.com Thu Jul 26 10:22:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BAE21F8690 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nNwQifftxIpg for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30FB421F868A for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SuRfr-000GHt-LH; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:16:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:22:05 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: "Fred Baker (fred)" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: Barry Leiba , "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:22:21 -0000 --On Thursday, July 26, 2012 16:50 +0000 "Fred Baker (fred)" wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2012, at 6:11 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > >> Again, I think the bottom line is that, if we are looking for >> a way to see how many people we can exclude, there is no >> shortage of opportunities. > > I don't take the objective as being that; I see it as making > sure that the I* bodies are not only not self-instantiating, > but are seen as non-self-instantiating. Whether or not someone > THINKS I shouldn't be on the nomcom, I have not volunteered > for the nomcom since 1996, and the reason is that *I* don't > think a person in my position (take your pick of the ones I > have had) should be on the nomcom except as a liaison. But if > we are agreeing together to such viewpoints and documenting > them, this might be one to mention. Indeed, that is a different, and IMO reasonable, interpretation about the reason for the rule. Personally, I see the tradeoffs as favoring "broader pool and more clue on the Nomcom" over extra barriers against self-instantiating bodies (I also think that, if we were really against self-perpetuating bodies, we would have imposed term limits, or at least different presumptions about returning candidates, a long time ago). But, if your view of the intent correctly reflects that of the community, then we should bar anyone who has served on the IAB, IESG, and maybe IAOC --certainly in a voting position and maybe in any position-- from serving on the Nomcom for at least a few years after stepping down. As far as I know, that has never been proposed... which doesn't mean it is a bad idea. > If you want to take the IAB programs as "directorates", works > for me. I might feel more free to volunteer. Since the IAB retains final authority and responsibility for the activities of all IAB programs and non-IAB members of those programs typically serve at the IAB's pleasure (even when they nominally have terms), I think that analogy is pretty reasonable. Again, the RSOC is a little more "solid" than most of the other programs because RFC 6635 creates it and more or less defines its membership a specific role but, at least IMO, the difference is not fundamental. On the other hand, if one wanted to avoid the appearance of the IAB or IESG being self-instantiating or self-perpetuating, one might want to exclude Program members and Directorate Members because they are extensions of and largely appointed by IAB and IESG members. best, john From housley@vigilsec.com Thu Jul 26 11:01:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347D621F861F for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:01:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QJ2XbNgnxP6e for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A7921F861E for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB98F24046; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:02:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HHkfcIqmu+4g; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.242.26.239] (mc60f36d0.tmodns.net [208.54.15.198]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CBD6F2403B; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:02:04 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:01:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> To: "Eggert, Lars" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:01:49 -0000 Several IAOC voting members are not selected my NomCom. In my view, = none of the voting IAOC members should be NomCom members. Russ On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi, >=20 > a lot of good points on this thread. I'm leaning towards agreeing with = those that want to maximize inclusiveness and participation in the = NomCom. Let me throw out a strawman proposal to see what people think: >=20 > "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position, you are = not eligible to serve on the NomCom." >=20 > Everyone else that is otherwise eligible can serve. This rule = obviously allows ex officio members, IAB functions, liaisons and others = to serve. (Full disclosure: I would be affected by this rule.)=20 >=20 > Lars From lars@netapp.com Thu Jul 26 11:11:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C697521F8547 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:11:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.436 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.163, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3vNJm9E7sFF6 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422E521F8540 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:11:46 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,660,1336374000"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="668864592" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2012 11:11:31 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.77.34]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q6QIBV4W028142; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.13]) by vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.34]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:11:30 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Russ Housley Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership Thread-Index: AQHNarKsPZraRBnOak6zesPrlihZ9Jc79iWAgAAKNYCAAC4hgIAAIuYAgAACuoA= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:11:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.116] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F6F76075-193C-4902-8A20-E4A949D69E3C"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:11:47 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F6F76075-193C-4902-8A20-E4A949D69E3C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:01, Russ Housley wrote: > Several IAOC voting members are not selected my NomCom. In my view, = none of the voting IAOC members should be NomCom members. Good point. How about: ""If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position = or have voting rights in the leadership body you serve on, you are not = eligible to serve on the NomCom." Lars= --Apple-Mail=_F6F76075-193C-4902-8A20-E4A949D69E3C Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMQDCCBUow ggQyoAMCAQICEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMTEyMTAwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEyMDkyMzU5NTlaMIIBDTEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEeMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYPbGFyc0BuZXRhcHAuY29t MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAokrhJTcXt6J/VEpZOicLoguBlYTjXP9v Ze4HuuhXnURUS8YouAfgaqA0zYbt5yd6fh4PBMdAaEWr5yJyHuFykXlrCumjUWSpLuqTS2A+pt4q cZaAQk9iLDN/UVd3SpkUuvWbxXlqzG7/BSqa3VNObBzCmyh+V7aXxri+30CT//DSsNRC4VFy6sn6 dMgSaFenXLwe/FBwY0qTMfICT1PrrX6Sw1S8OfH9rykLlZXbmfkFExxQngp1DJH9xMHeODHGbCv/ ty5gdxMOrLe+vENxFEcy1YQWBZd1kNL4UObugF8A/jE/s+Oa3H1VFH8ghqZTdqGDysVxmtKHuNFx 6jIBSQIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcXATAqMCgG CCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIFoDAdBgNV HSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDovL2luZGMx ZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3JsMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBA7q6tR92qpd7xo7VBsrOfGCWzoxIVfTc7t0RhB/Oz/+c3lnhYnNScIuKN JmyZvznmVxqB9BJ72+NkvmdB/hnILSBTRawL2tyLo9PkBtN0nRt4gS6wjpWnD8G83hlJLE7r25jk 7HkRev61dTIXsANFpJKF02C4XSoDfEzNV6MpuEvHvcgHCqMrlwWwfKc7+NoDnE8PBuRzwSXvlD5L mswCY2iiOsd7ImNO4OzTCxETvKTDu92+FTIbRJJpYjVNv1UF7e3w9Kq65BkZJErUH19beUeQl0Wh 2BJQE6/15rQyCnP0iJ/Nmx2/kI6M0PWunEsI6FMs0MbosreaWGHlQmomMIIG7jCCBdagAwIBAgIQ cRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoT DlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTowOAYDVQQL EzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5MUUwQwYD VQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9y aXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3Jr MTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAo YykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBD bGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOC AQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6ZvgSU6Lb9UB 0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHsEnMhjfXc MM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO4YM/d/mZ //6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSyriMGZSal J1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCCArUwNAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wEgYDVR0T AQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVy aXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9w Y2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgwVhYJaW1h Z2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDovL2xvZ28u dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQcml2YXRl TGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYDVR0jBIHp MIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEg UHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaEVIULAM+v OEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlMJBq6WaSH O3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKvYLMVirOV nDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDRyxTWcVib vtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy+kgOZY5J yNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/wYIxggSL MIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBD QSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDcyNjE4MTEzMFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFMTW FwLyZWh7X/86apB0DXwGCwQ5MIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBACLz8Ufg 8eBF8riW7wF65+kPyhdapnVHM7Uiweq3k3WkRgw3fhHnUEfsZpvxUDAjBC9h1UEnEvRPRjaJvJIS T9XScJfQKC6VoW/jPNnOKAbKQMDd65oebZJRBKmLkDTl+q4Ulqx5MuESUcN2166Gp3NKra474syr q+SMifURZhqHrZXM07BPmXWMmlpDbW9QWthIWIQgdyWLwN2+04oRZcWCsHGZBvZCvnvc/NMNpmx0 JD5d6slBm+CXvuXo56Zfi/Sa4kq32Vcow2L51TkyM4CFp0xG3ypYUXxeM3nIrm7q9/Wwhn6oZzo4 9F4EbcjT4vE1ZbKff9u/mJ4IqWmh3pMAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_F6F76075-193C-4902-8A20-E4A949D69E3C-- From lars@netapp.com Thu Jul 26 11:21:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1533021F861F for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:21:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.161, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gDrg7D9CU451 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FDF21F861C for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:21:24 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,660,1336374000"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="668868420" Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2012 11:21:24 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.239]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q6QILOSc000651; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.13]) by vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:21:23 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Russ Housley Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership Thread-Index: AQHNarKsPZraRBnOak6zesPrlihZ9Jc79iWAgAAKNYCAAC4hgIAAIuYAgAACuoCAAALFAA== Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:21:23 +0000 Message-ID: <773AD47C-F0E6-471D-9B62-9FE38840D25D@netapp.com> References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.116] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_85C87182-3EF5-45D5-B717-507EDE60A9BE"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:21:25 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_85C87182-3EF5-45D5-B717-507EDE60A9BE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:11, "Eggert, Lars" wrote: > How about: "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed = position or have voting rights in the leadership body you serve on, you = are not eligible to serve on the NomCom." "leadership body" is probably too loosely defined. Retrying: "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position or have = voting rights in an IETF leadership body that has other NomCom-appointed = members, you are not eligible to serve on the NomCom." Lars= --Apple-Mail=_85C87182-3EF5-45D5-B717-507EDE60A9BE Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMQDCCBUow ggQyoAMCAQICEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMTEyMTAwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEyMDkyMzU5NTlaMIIBDTEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEeMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYPbGFyc0BuZXRhcHAuY29t MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAokrhJTcXt6J/VEpZOicLoguBlYTjXP9v Ze4HuuhXnURUS8YouAfgaqA0zYbt5yd6fh4PBMdAaEWr5yJyHuFykXlrCumjUWSpLuqTS2A+pt4q cZaAQk9iLDN/UVd3SpkUuvWbxXlqzG7/BSqa3VNObBzCmyh+V7aXxri+30CT//DSsNRC4VFy6sn6 dMgSaFenXLwe/FBwY0qTMfICT1PrrX6Sw1S8OfH9rykLlZXbmfkFExxQngp1DJH9xMHeODHGbCv/ ty5gdxMOrLe+vENxFEcy1YQWBZd1kNL4UObugF8A/jE/s+Oa3H1VFH8ghqZTdqGDysVxmtKHuNFx 6jIBSQIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcXATAqMCgG CCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIFoDAdBgNV HSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDovL2luZGMx ZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3JsMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBA7q6tR92qpd7xo7VBsrOfGCWzoxIVfTc7t0RhB/Oz/+c3lnhYnNScIuKN JmyZvznmVxqB9BJ72+NkvmdB/hnILSBTRawL2tyLo9PkBtN0nRt4gS6wjpWnD8G83hlJLE7r25jk 7HkRev61dTIXsANFpJKF02C4XSoDfEzNV6MpuEvHvcgHCqMrlwWwfKc7+NoDnE8PBuRzwSXvlD5L mswCY2iiOsd7ImNO4OzTCxETvKTDu92+FTIbRJJpYjVNv1UF7e3w9Kq65BkZJErUH19beUeQl0Wh 2BJQE6/15rQyCnP0iJ/Nmx2/kI6M0PWunEsI6FMs0MbosreaWGHlQmomMIIG7jCCBdagAwIBAgIQ cRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoT DlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTowOAYDVQQL EzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5MUUwQwYD VQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9y aXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3Jr MTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAo YykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBD bGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOC AQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6ZvgSU6Lb9UB 0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHsEnMhjfXc MM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO4YM/d/mZ //6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSyriMGZSal J1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCCArUwNAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wEgYDVR0T AQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVy aXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9w Y2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgwVhYJaW1h Z2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDovL2xvZ28u dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQcml2YXRl TGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYDVR0jBIHp MIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEg UHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaEVIULAM+v OEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlMJBq6WaSH O3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKvYLMVirOV nDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDRyxTWcVib vtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy+kgOZY5J yNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/wYIxggSL MIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBD QSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDcyNjE4MjEyNFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFJyb SuxgcosaCcWszpYKIFiG6n49MIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAFNEpLw2 X8E6x3sVSoHUp4XfKDTAztejcR3EyRynBVCHY2VFHec/ojW4u9UqAH/e8cl9RPCfyPLc0ARhyo/x 1yYbuUo8op5YwHRmumPwBBrrXdkpXWSQ4Ame6qvwrlZ+WhsU7WPHu3vcc9xR0Bpr3V7pMz/qqpxk 4zC8WN0hTDxnowhAP+d7jtBKqM/YIcprexywrq3LBOTVIzHrgN0AzCkOjRZXr+vq7gN1526a+Zx8 4Pki9pja0vcftK/aRyytDT1Mbafayn8qdD44p+fzn49fproDqL/LKpKIFRgABlsgpNs3EtdRnYrp CLjRfBE/mopn6/Ve0BQErzK0Y/6n1Z4AAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_85C87182-3EF5-45D5-B717-507EDE60A9BE-- From john-ietf@jck.com Thu Jul 26 12:11:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F297721F85A8 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:11:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9NBif2kOX-JS for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:11:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7929721F8530 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:11:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SuTN7-000GTI-3Y; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:05:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:10:50 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: "Eggert, Lars" , Russ Housley Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <773AD47C-F0E6-471D-9B62-9FE38840D25D@netapp.com> References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> <773AD47C-F0E6-471D-9B62-9FE38840D25D@netapp.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:11:09 -0000 --On Thursday, July 26, 2012 18:21 +0000 "Eggert, Lars" wrote: > On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:11, "Eggert, Lars" > wrote: >> How about: "If you are currently serving in a >> NomCom-appointed position or have voting rights in the >> leadership body you serve on, you are not eligible to serve >> on the NomCom." > > "leadership body" is probably too loosely defined. Retrying: > > "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position > or have voting rights in an IETF leadership body that has > other NomCom-appointed members, you are not eligible to serve > on the NomCom." Because of the "approval body" issue, I think we still need to exclude the ISOC BoT. I don't think any of their members are selected by the Nomcom. One could patch the above by saying "...an IETF leadership body that has other NomCom-appointed members or that approves Nomcom selections,..." john From john-ietf@jck.com Thu Jul 26 12:13:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C3521F8629 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:13:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FaAbiDW-ButW for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E294E21F85A8 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SuTPN-000GU7-Ec; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:07:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:13:11 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Russ Housley , "Eggert, Lars" Message-ID: <0D7F5643C148C647875EDE33@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:13:42 -0000 --On Thursday, July 26, 2012 14:01 -0400 Russ Housley wrote: > Several IAOC voting members are not selected my NomCom. In my > view, none of the voting IAOC members should be NomCom members. Russ, Ok with me, but (ignoring ISOC members who are excluded by other criteria, like IESG or IAB membership) why do you think the others should be excluded? best, john From delaat@uva.nl Thu Jul 26 12:16:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2AC11E8099 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:16:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x87uLbtcspuf for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ezel.ic.uva.nl (ezel.ic.uva.nl [146.50.108.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5580121F8598 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-cdl.lan (ip5658550a.direct-adsl.nl [86.88.85.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by ezel.ic.uva.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6QJGS0o020739 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:16:28 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1485\)) From: Cees de Laat In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:16:28 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7D26E168-482B-4011-BC23-8EFDF50BFF7A@uva.nl> References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> <773AD47C-F0E6-471D-9B62-9FE38840D25D@netapp.com> To: John C Klensin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1485) Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:16:31 -0000 > members or that approves Nomcom selections,=85" ^^^^^^^ I think the term is: confirms Nomcom selections,... Best regards, Cees. On 26 jul. 2012, at 21:10, John C Klensin wrote: >=20 >=20 > --On Thursday, July 26, 2012 18:21 +0000 "Eggert, Lars" > wrote: >=20 >> On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:11, "Eggert, Lars" >> wrote: >>> How about: "If you are currently serving in a >>> NomCom-appointed position or have voting rights in the >>> leadership body you serve on, you are not eligible to serve >>> on the NomCom." >>=20 >> "leadership body" is probably too loosely defined. Retrying: >>=20 >> "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position >> or have voting rights in an IETF leadership body that has >> other NomCom-appointed members, you are not eligible to serve >> on the NomCom." >=20 > Because of the "approval body" issue, I think we still need to > exclude the ISOC BoT. I don't think any of their members are > selected by the Nomcom. One could patch the above by saying > "...an IETF leadership body that has other NomCom-appointed > members or that approves Nomcom selections,..." >=20 > john >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From dhc@dcrocker.net Thu Jul 26 15:15:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3591C21F8498 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:15:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.587 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WuHTz4zO5e-k for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44A821F8491 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-201.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6QMF8Bw007678 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:15:09 -0700 Message-ID: <5011C167.2090208@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:15:03 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:15:11 -0000 On 7/26/2012 11:01 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > Several IAOC voting members are not selected my NomCom. In my view, none of the voting IAOC members should be NomCom members. +1 But to generalize: If someone is currently a member of an IETF management group[1] they should not have voting rights on Nomcom. The fact that this makes a large number of highly experienced folk ineligible, however, ought to be a point of concern. d/ [1] IESG, IAB, IRSG, IAOC, ISOC. I suspect this should include RSOC. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From Jonne.Soininen@renesasmobile.com Fri Jul 27 08:16:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6EFF21F8769 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:16:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fi1SwIJtd8bc for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B926A21F8766 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.158.138.51:39664] by server-11.bemta-3.messagelabs.com id 93/92-00679-3C0B2105; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:16:19 +0000 X-Env-Sender: Jonne.Soininen@renesasmobile.com X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-174.messagelabs.com!1343402178!25121852!1 X-Originating-IP: [213.174.82.11] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.6.1.2; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 1370 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2012 15:16:18 -0000 Received: from renexfe02.roe2.renesasmobile.com (HELO renexfe02.roe2.renesasmobile.com) (213.174.82.11) by server-10.tower-174.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Jul 2012 15:16:18 -0000 Received: from RENEXMB01.roe2.renesasmobile.com ([fe80::e58a:2b9f:54fe:ff5]) by renexfe02.roe2.renesasmobile.com ([fe80::e89f:c2cf:d14a:d1d7%17]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:16:18 +0300 From: To: , Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership Thread-Index: AQHNarKqj3Tc1YcQj0qWmUeHuyOE5Jc7ToGAgAAKNoCAAC4iAIAAIuUAgABGx4CAAU+cgA== Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:16:16 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5011C167.2090208@dcrocker.net> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.22.172] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <68FB77A79EAE674C8AAACB45DA5B3A98@renesasmobile.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:16:21 -0000 +1 --=20 Jonne Soininen Renesas Mobile Tel: +358 40 527 4634 E-mail: jonne.soininen@renesasmobile.com On 7/27/12 1:15 AM, "Dave Crocker" wrote: > > >On 7/26/2012 11:01 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >> Several IAOC voting members are not selected my NomCom. In my view, >>none of the voting IAOC members should be NomCom members. > > >+1 > >But to generalize: > > If someone is currently a member of an IETF management group[1] they >should not have voting rights on Nomcom. > >The fact that this makes a large number of highly experienced folk >ineligible, however, ought to be a point of concern. > > >d/ > >[1] IESG, IAB, IRSG, IAOC, ISOC. I suspect this should include RSOC. > >--=20 > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net >_______________________________________________ >ietf-nomcom mailing list >ietf-nomcom@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From housley@vigilsec.com Fri Jul 27 09:57:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99EF911E80D7 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:57:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vo7FoX8gCddl for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E738611E80D2 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A2FF2403E; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:57:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LHNpdXuOrO3Q; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:57:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d142-058-230-001.wireless.sfu.ca (d142-058-230-001.wireless.sfu.ca [142.58.230.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63BAF2403B; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:57:58 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:57:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4EC57347-A797-453A-B054-96F35EE93C09@vigilsec.com> References: To: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:57:54 -0000 Dave: >> [1] IESG, IAB, IRSG, IAOC, ISOC. I suspect this should include = RSOC. I do not think that RSOC belongs on this list. RSOC members are = appointed. This is very similar to a Directorate, and it would be = unreasonable to exclude all people that are on any directorate. We have not excluded IRSG members in the past. Why should this be = changed? Russ From dhc@dcrocker.net Fri Jul 27 11:19:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A7721F8543 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:19:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6y7vahXDsVJx for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0EE21F84D6 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (adsl-67-127-55-201.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6RIJNkQ026038 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:19:24 -0700 Message-ID: <5012DBA4.60205@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:19:16 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley References: <4EC57347-A797-453A-B054-96F35EE93C09@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <4EC57347-A797-453A-B054-96F35EE93C09@vigilsec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:19:25 -0000 On 7/27/2012 9:57 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > Dave: > >>> [1] IESG, IAB, IRSG, IAOC, ISOC. I suspect this should include >>> RSOC. > > I do not think that RSOC belongs on this list. RSOC members are > appointed. This is very similar to a Directorate, and it would be > unreasonable to exclude all people that are on any directorate. > > We have not excluded IRSG members in the past. Why should this be > changed? I like rules that start from simple, concrete, relevant principles. In this case, the concern is undue influence relating to formal authority. That is, the excluded folk are claimed to have authority that could affect nomcom processes either while underway or later. The simple label for such authority is "management" in the upper reaches of the IETF. Hence, for example, wg chairs are deemed not sufficiently powerful to be a concern, whereas area directors are. As for RSOC members being appointed, everyone is appointed in the IETF, so I don't see how that's relevant. Comparing RSOC to a Directorate does seem a worthy basis for consideration. However I'll I'll claim that RSOC has significantly more leverage. In practical terms, I think oversight of the RFC Editor is more strategic than the casual advice offered by directorates to area directors. I don't really see directorates as management-related, whereas RSOC most definitely is. (I realize that the IAB has final authority, but one can claim that the IAB can reverse the IESG and ISOC can reverse the IAB, so concern for "ultimate" authority probably isn't helpful; daily, practical authority seems the most relevant to me.) IRSG is interesting. I included it mechanically, to equate with IESG. On reflection it probably shouldn't qualify. In practical terms, I suspect IRSG members are more on a par with wg chairs. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From housley@vigilsec.com Fri Jul 27 11:34:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150F721F85D6 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:34:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HWPxmONpLodo for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CCB21F85D0 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11B89A470F; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:34:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XM0sY9D80IwR; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:34:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d142-058-230-001.wireless.sfu.ca (d142-058-230-001.wireless.sfu.ca [142.58.230.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C877F2403B; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <0D7F5643C148C647875EDE33@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:34:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6533B3AF-B417-42E9-B6E8-424C53095D48@vigilsec.com> References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> <0D7F5643C148C647875EDE33@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> To: John C Klensin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:34:28 -0000 John: >> Several IAOC voting members are not selected my NomCom. In my >> view, none of the voting IAOC members should be NomCom members. >=20 > Ok with me, but (ignoring ISOC members who are excluded by other > criteria, like IESG or IAB membership) why do you think the > others should be excluded? The leadership bodies do not want to be a self-selecting. If a member = of one of these bodies can be a voting member of NomCom, there will be = perception that we have failed to achieve this goal. Russ= From john-ietf@jck.com Fri Jul 27 11:56:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF2321F86D5 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:56:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XtTrrwP56ATm for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C27D821F869F for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Supc3-000MvH-OC; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:50:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:55:47 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Russ Housley Message-ID: <3D6F0CABA4958C9B25E66B6D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <5012DBA4.60205@dcrocker.net> References: <4EC57347-A797-453A-B054-96F35EE93C09@vigilsec.com> <5012DBA4.60205@dcrocker.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:56:06 -0000 --On Friday, July 27, 2012 11:19 -0700 Dave Crocker wrote: >... > In this case, the concern is undue influence relating to > formal authority. That is, the excluded folk are claimed to > have authority that could affect nomcom processes either while > underway or later. Interesting. We now have four explanations of the concern/ reason for the restriction. In no particular order: * undue influence relating to formal authority * preventing the IAB, IESG, and maybe some other bodies, from becoming self-instantiating, self-selecting, or self-perpetuating (not all quite the same thing, but maybe close enough) * preventing bodies, most of whose membership is selected by the Nomcom, from having excessive influence over the Nomcom's process and decisions. * avoiding confusing or contaminating the review and approval process. Those explanations, when applied, yield lists of excluded people who overlap considerably, but they don't produce the same lists. So it seems to be that we should try to see if we actually have consensus about what we are trying to accomplish and why before we try to fine-tune the rules. And, again, while we could write rules that would exclude every person and role about which there might possibly be doubt, the consequence of doing so might easily be a Nomcom that selects people for the leadership without having any internal clues about how the leadership actually works. That has its own significant disadvantages. In particular, it makes the Nomcom completely dependent on job descriptions for individual slots or bodies written by those bodies. That, in turn, is as much a risk for the perception of self selection (or clones-of-selves selection) as actually having people from those bodies on the Nomcom. I hope we can find a reasonable balance, not merely a simplistic rule. john From housley@vigilsec.com Fri Jul 27 11:59:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94F811E80D6 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:59:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sa-Z1W20MPPB for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:59:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B9811E80B3 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:59:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627CEF24046; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:59:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RplYqNCnrrKr; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:59:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d142-058-230-001.wireless.sfu.ca (d142-058-230-001.wireless.sfu.ca [142.58.230.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7260FF2403E; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:59:54 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <3D6F0CABA4958C9B25E66B6D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:59:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <9F4E0754-46D6-43A6-A1EE-1C5409511679@vigilsec.com> References: <4EC57347-A797-453A-B054-96F35EE93C09@vigilsec.com> <5012DBA4.60205@dcrocker.net> <3D6F0CABA4958C9B25E66B6D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> To: John C Klensin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:59:39 -0000 John: > I hope we can find a reasonable balance, not merely a simplistic > rule. Indeed. Russ From dhc@dcrocker.net Fri Jul 27 12:09:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F82221F86F1 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:09:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ogcmn3lcP7ly for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:09:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0B721F86E8 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:09:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (adsl-67-127-55-201.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6RJ9Kxv027006 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:09:21 -0700 Message-ID: <5012E759.7080600@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:09:13 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John C Klensin References: <4EC57347-A797-453A-B054-96F35EE93C09@vigilsec.com> <5012DBA4.60205@dcrocker.net> <3D6F0CABA4958C9B25E66B6D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <3D6F0CABA4958C9B25E66B6D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:09:21 -0700 (PDT) Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:09:22 -0000 On 7/27/2012 11:55 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > Interesting. We now have four explanations of the concern/ > reason for the restriction. In no particular order: > > * undue influence relating to formal authority > > * preventing the IAB, IESG, and maybe some other bodies, > from becoming self-instantiating, self-selecting, or > self-perpetuating (not all quite the same thing, but > maybe close enough) > > * preventing bodies, most of whose membership is > selected by the Nomcom, from having excessive influence > over the Nomcom's process and decisions. > > * avoiding confusing or contaminating the review and > approval process. First and third bullets look roughly equivalent to me, differing in focus on formality vs. pragmatics, but in practical terms I think these turn out to be the same. Second bullet is an instance of the effect from the primary bullet. Fourth bullet is less precise than one and three, but looks relatively similar in its concern. Let's not confuse differences in wording with differences in principle. And let's not spend a lot of energy in debating wording. As for finding balance, anything requiring subtlety in application won't work. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From sm@resistor.net Fri Jul 27 12:30:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5930821F858E for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:30:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y-CrU+HVwO1Z for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:29:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E684D21F84CE for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sm-THINK.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6RJTsrZ003348; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:29:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1343417396; bh=7Xqo2o79iD4IUvdchYEUiQspLR7YYrovkgFyNiNzKxw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Mh3bM/ln1oEmP5d6KPXSPsL3ueEq8Jiy0rQbyKEB2bh/A/oewiUsJqBkNVI2buLBR I+AG22mdmXmd9sliR+GLiB99uXedEFDEDuVhl68iaaZdE6smJrPs2VXzYnW3kviWlX S+nb1nBk0x3/cZa3TyXWFFyDdp6BdJKeMA3uD6Vo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1343417396; i=@resistor.net; bh=7Xqo2o79iD4IUvdchYEUiQspLR7YYrovkgFyNiNzKxw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=y7UM3LeuT+jDmj6XPNL0Ele9kVS7jT5fUPKnWrqecFE9oSh/UpJIyoS9XflNI/gbg kq7cT9IrjoJsoCJZ4N8aGtS3hKYvdO0Vf5TM6qYA7Bx5tHcFyhqBjW503kM7C2UiRL b/dL/c/FHH1mDvVo6D+ai6iB8/9CY1LsRRohDfDk= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120727121540.056d8248@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:28:57 -0700 To: Russ Housley From: SM In-Reply-To: <6533B3AF-B417-42E9-B6E8-424C53095D48@vigilsec.com> References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> <0D7F5643C148C647875EDE33@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <6533B3AF-B417-42E9-B6E8-424C53095D48@vigilsec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:30:02 -0000 At 11:34 AM 7/27/2012, Russ Housley wrote: >The leadership bodies do not want to be a self-selecting. If a >member of one of these bodies can be a voting member of NomCom, >there will be perception that we have failed to achieve this goal. I gather that the "selecting" is similar to an advise and consent model instead of an open vote. It's ok to fine-tune perceptions. I don't see much value in doing that if it doesn't affect reality. If the leadership bodies do not want to be self-selecting they can raise a concern about the NomCom slate. They may also provide feedback to NomCom about what they do not like. Regards, -sm From mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com Fri Jul 27 13:13:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA8121F855B for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:13:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.708 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.708 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.776, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ubxiTpNN2muA for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2FE721F854F for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so2553578lbb.31 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:13:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=oMytPkfh383RpV9HF1sVHleWgwNzFGnr0kVitc5UfbQ=; b=x4Y67NWNUK0H871S7OZ5gorbY18ywRGO5tJfvFADfU6jqnr2v3qL3g2kS37gj9uu4y 6DFHRYCd4TB4SWjOAggWa2NLM9mB7VC6nUgq8wR/jMNCSfgwp0saELkmwjr2DuPuRd3U 5FqXAO+eQMww9e2XqBBPpbtzK5xTDzUjxvlm8pTGZ9H3OZfr/YQR45svbZdT19MO7J1g J4aBuLIiUVIPljIhuW5MVVEsStq6TgdB4EtXaUCTCku7SPJE+nyggJ095DcbyEF4QOSt G4LW76VwIHc4X8SotHqFrjZi/PK529iC+1uoaYfSTptmRW7CiX2nrpvG4Q0nn/MukWWE i+Iw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.131.37 with SMTP id oj5mr3777429lab.14.1343420030587; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.85.196 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:13:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120727121540.056d8248@resistor.net> References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> <0D7F5643C148C647875EDE33@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <6533B3AF-B417-42E9-B6E8-424C53095D48@vigilsec.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120727121540.056d8248@resistor.net> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:13:50 -0500 Message-ID: From: Mary Barnes To: SM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042c6b8db5121204c5d5597c Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:13:53 -0000 --f46d042c6b8db5121204c5d5597c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:28 PM, SM wrote: > At 11:34 AM 7/27/2012, Russ Housley wrote: > >> The leadership bodies do not want to be a self-selecting. If a member of >> one of these bodies can be a voting member of NomCom, there will be >> perception that we have failed to achieve this goal. >> > > I gather that the "selecting" is similar to an advise and consent model > instead of an open vote. It's ok to fine-tune perceptions. I don't see > much value in doing that if it doesn't affect reality. > > If the leadership bodies do not want to be self-selecting they can raise a > concern about the NomCom slate. They may also provide feedback to NomCom > about what they do not like. > [MB] Exactly. And, the really sad thing is that only about 10% of the leadership provides any input or feedback to the Nomcom (that was the stats the year I was chair). That is pathetic since they are the ones with the experience in the positions which are being filled. [/MB] > > Regards, > -sm > ______________________________**_________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ietf-nomcom > --f46d042c6b8db5121204c5d5597c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:28 PM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:
At 11:34 AM 7/27/2012, Russ Housley wrote:
The leadership bodies do not want to be a self-selecting. =A0If a member of= one of these bodies can be a voting member of NomCom, there will be percep= tion that we have failed to achieve this goal.

I gather that the "selecting" is similar to an advise and consent= model instead of an open vote. =A0It's ok to fine-tune perceptions. I = don't see much value in doing that if it doesn't affect reality.
If the leadership bodies do not want to be self-selecting they can raise a = concern about the NomCom slate. =A0They may also provide feedback to NomCom= about what they do not like.
[MB] Exactly. =A0And, th= e really sad thing is that only about 10% of the leadership provides any in= put or feedback to the Nomcom (that was the stats the year I was chair). Th= at is pathetic since they are the ones with the experience in the positions= which are being filled. [/MB]=A0

Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing list
ietf-nomcom@ietf.= org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

--f46d042c6b8db5121204c5d5597c-- From lars@netapp.com Fri Jul 27 13:15:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B45021F8599 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:15:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sklx3wDTJBrg for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEA621F8594 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:15:27 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,668,1336374000"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="669186522" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 27 Jul 2012 13:15:12 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.239]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q6RKFCWg026799; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:15:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.13]) by vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:15:12 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: "" Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership Thread-Index: AQHNarKsPZraRBnOak6zesPrlihZ9Jc79iWAgAAKNYCAAC4hgIAAIuYAgABGx4CAAR1TAIAAHFiAgAAWyQCAACBiAA== Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:15:11 +0000 Message-ID: <0C8F7C85-6F89-4BE2-B799-E665E9731AB7@netapp.com> References: <4EC57347-A797-453A-B054-96F35EE93C09@vigilsec.com> <5012DBA4.60205@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <5012DBA4.60205@dcrocker.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.116] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BAD3486F-8B28-4472-B862-78AB7571C07D"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:15:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_BAD3486F-8B28-4472-B862-78AB7571C07D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jul 27, 2012, at 11:19, Dave Crocker wrote: > In practical terms, I suspect IRSG members are more on a par with wg = chairs. Correct. Lars= --Apple-Mail=_BAD3486F-8B28-4472-B862-78AB7571C07D Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMQDCCBUow ggQyoAMCAQICEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMTEyMTAwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEyMDkyMzU5NTlaMIIBDTEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEeMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYPbGFyc0BuZXRhcHAuY29t MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAokrhJTcXt6J/VEpZOicLoguBlYTjXP9v Ze4HuuhXnURUS8YouAfgaqA0zYbt5yd6fh4PBMdAaEWr5yJyHuFykXlrCumjUWSpLuqTS2A+pt4q cZaAQk9iLDN/UVd3SpkUuvWbxXlqzG7/BSqa3VNObBzCmyh+V7aXxri+30CT//DSsNRC4VFy6sn6 dMgSaFenXLwe/FBwY0qTMfICT1PrrX6Sw1S8OfH9rykLlZXbmfkFExxQngp1DJH9xMHeODHGbCv/ ty5gdxMOrLe+vENxFEcy1YQWBZd1kNL4UObugF8A/jE/s+Oa3H1VFH8ghqZTdqGDysVxmtKHuNFx 6jIBSQIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcXATAqMCgG CCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIFoDAdBgNV HSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDovL2luZGMx ZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3JsMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBA7q6tR92qpd7xo7VBsrOfGCWzoxIVfTc7t0RhB/Oz/+c3lnhYnNScIuKN JmyZvznmVxqB9BJ72+NkvmdB/hnILSBTRawL2tyLo9PkBtN0nRt4gS6wjpWnD8G83hlJLE7r25jk 7HkRev61dTIXsANFpJKF02C4XSoDfEzNV6MpuEvHvcgHCqMrlwWwfKc7+NoDnE8PBuRzwSXvlD5L mswCY2iiOsd7ImNO4OzTCxETvKTDu92+FTIbRJJpYjVNv1UF7e3w9Kq65BkZJErUH19beUeQl0Wh 2BJQE6/15rQyCnP0iJ/Nmx2/kI6M0PWunEsI6FMs0MbosreaWGHlQmomMIIG7jCCBdagAwIBAgIQ cRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoT DlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTowOAYDVQQL EzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5MUUwQwYD VQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9y aXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3Jr MTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAo YykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBD bGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOC AQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6ZvgSU6Lb9UB 0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHsEnMhjfXc MM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO4YM/d/mZ //6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSyriMGZSal J1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCCArUwNAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wEgYDVR0T AQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVy aXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9w Y2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgwVhYJaW1h Z2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDovL2xvZ28u dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQcml2YXRl TGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYDVR0jBIHp MIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEg UHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaEVIULAM+v OEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlMJBq6WaSH O3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKvYLMVirOV nDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDRyxTWcVib vtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy+kgOZY5J yNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/wYIxggSL MIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBD QSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDcyNzIwMTUxMVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFIBQ q+kWOFu8IT7z4FwZBniWBBS7MIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBABzKUA1M O0NqY3cUhfL9zMOZkArJcRwzwOa0uG89aWK9ZdhUja7ldOiyUxUCMeg1ZE6V+azABaUKnZWkCwNP Y7iu46YbQ1n+Oy0QBrfYfnrz5LXOR4tYbYsrk7jsl8kOsCkl5cDFiF/VQRKfIzeckvMf7+GRBqq2 DP7WHtxk2IynRfNkz3xLdnJQBJcv9DaN51TxadAWyg1aPeEFKwORU4JfZNUYPNVaLJV+gb8RUt40 QRZGsBqQN2IFrbMbzF5+9Btl1EDmdTAbjhNb0kwuN1Hm1u+JaYQRwal4XSl/ffDEf881zLikwsGD zCimTENW72+LnWiNqKGTKONE0Qjgiy4AAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_BAD3486F-8B28-4472-B862-78AB7571C07D-- From rcallon@juniper.net Fri Jul 27 13:24:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D53E21F85E4 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:24:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TmW6sqDPbsqi for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2445F21F85E3 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUBL49WPLNXV2x4SrORemm1E24W+OcesX@postini.com; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:24:26 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:23:28 -0700 Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:23:28 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:23:27 -0400 From: Ross Callon To: "Fred Baker (fred)" , "Eggert, Lars" Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:23:27 -0400 Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership Thread-Index: AQHNarKqdCIfYy6KREawxAXzziOokZc71HOAgAAKYICAAC4iAIAADweAgAFy12A= Message-ID: References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> <9FE8CFD8-B518-49A8-957B-C5C9114EE0EA@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <9FE8CFD8-B518-49A8-957B-C5C9114EE0EA@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Barry Leiba , "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:24:27 -0000 > "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position, you are not= eligible to serve on the NomCom." This is a good rule of thumb, but IMHO is a bit too simple.=20 As one obvious example, nomcom members can't serve (even though they are no= t in a nomcom appointed position).=20 I agree with other comments that IAOC members should not be eligible to ser= ve as nomcom voting members, regardless of whether they are nomcom appointe= d or otherwise appointed.=20 I am inclined to agree that people who serve on a board which confirms nomc= om appointments should not be able to serve on nomcom. This rules out the I= SOC BOT.=20 However, other than current members of nomcom, IESG, IAB, IAOC, and ISOC BO= T, I don't see any need to exclude anyone else.=20 Regarding the RSOC, with regard to serving on nomcom I don't see being on t= he RSOC as all that different from being a WG chair: neither RSOC nor WG ch= airs are confirming nomcom appointments nor are members of nomcom appointed= groups. It seems valuable to have some members of nomcom who actually unde= rstand the IETF, and WG chairs and RSOC members are likely to have some use= ful understanding. I think that they should be allowed to volunteer for nom= com.=20 Ross -----Original Message----- From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org] On= Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred) Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:51 PM To: Eggert, Lars Cc: Barry Leiba; Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi, >=20 > a lot of good points on this thread. I'm leaning towards agreeing with th= ose that want to maximize inclusiveness and participation in the NomCom. Le= t me throw out a strawman proposal to see what people think: >=20 > "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position, you are not= eligible to serve on the NomCom." That might be a good rule. > Everyone else that is otherwise eligible can serve. This rule obviously a= llows ex officio members, IAB functions, liaisons and others to serve. (Ful= l disclosure: I would be affected by this rule.)=20 >=20 > Lars _______________________________________________ ietf-nomcom mailing list ietf-nomcom@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From dhc@dcrocker.net Fri Jul 27 13:27:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE7F11E809B for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:27:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j40TpSN73qwT for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ABDD11E808A for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (adsl-67-127-55-201.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6RKRJ3q028126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:27:19 -0700 Message-ID: <5012F9A0.2010307@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:27:12 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <376F17E2-1E15-496A-B43B-905B0E1278D2@cisco.com> <3CB234B18246A70CC65B2DC7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <427E5F3D-82DF-4193-8E3E-3DBF1D00B7B0@netapp.com> <0D7F5643C148C647875EDE33@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <6533B3AF-B417-42E9-B6E8-424C53095D48@vigilsec.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120727121540.056d8248@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120727121540.056d8248@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:27:20 -0000 On 7/27/2012 12:28 PM, SM wrote: > I gather that the "selecting" is similar to an advise and consent model > instead of an open vote. It's ok to fine-tune perceptions. I don't see > much value in doing that if it doesn't affect reality. In very formal terms, perhaps. But in reality, the confirming bodies essentially never do actual rejections. They come close, sometimes, but I believe the cases in which a Nomcom has changed a nomination have been close to zero, if not zero. In advice-and-consent models like the US government, the confirming bodies often reject. > If the leadership bodies do not want to be self-selecting they can raise > a concern about the NomCom slate. They may also provide feedback to > NomCom about what they do not like. 1. It it not only the leadership who do not want the bodies to be self-selecting. It is the community. 2. Raising a concern after a slate has been announced doesn't work. Hence the goal is to formulate proactive rules that make it likely a slate of Nomcom voting members will have sufficient experience to provide insight and sufficient independence to provide... independence. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dcrocker@bbiw.net Fri Jul 27 12:06:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0B921F86F9 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:06:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.54 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ByKY-6BvxrX for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C651B21F86EA for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-201.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6RJ6giU026942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:06:42 -0700 Message-ID: <5012E6BB.2040902@bbiw.net> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:06:35 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John C Klensin References: <4EC57347-A797-453A-B054-96F35EE93C09@vigilsec.com> <5012DBA4.60205@dcrocker.net> <3D6F0CABA4958C9B25E66B6D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <3D6F0CABA4958C9B25E66B6D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:15:45 -0700 Cc: IETF NomCom Discuss Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:06:44 -0000 On 7/27/2012 11:55 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > Interesting. We now have four explanations of the concern/ > reason for the restriction. In no particular order: > > * undue influence relating to formal authority > > * preventing the IAB, IESG, and maybe some other bodies, > from becoming self-instantiating, self-selecting, or > self-perpetuating (not all quite the same thing, but > maybe close enough) > > * preventing bodies, most of whose membership is > selected by the Nomcom, from having excessive influence > over the Nomcom's process and decisions. > > * avoiding confusing or contaminating the review and > approval process. First and third bullets look roughly equivalent to me, differing in focus on formality vs. pragmatics, but in practical terms I think these turn out to be the same. Second bullet is an instance of the effect from the primary bullet. Fourth bullet is less precise than one and three, but looks relatively similar in its concern. Let's not confuse differences in wording with differences in principle. And let's not spend a lot of energy in debating wording. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net