From sm@elandsys.com Thu Aug 2 11:46:17 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 0B28221E8113 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:46:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, 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 f2dpKeQY97DM for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:46:12 -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 A7DCA21E8114 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sm-THINK.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q72IjuID002632 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:46:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1343933168; bh=2tKL1utv7ngtbBVLCDT3GVvsWv6OUHbtHcZgEB2lEsU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=K2S+fzVX38dvlzYxa2U7X3lvSmM8q//j22236rcag4EI0p+XJ7SEVCVWSF1JqMlcu V7wgYrtE1LJxvM01fLQriZOCuvcTLoWR/Xjf0XYPK1YtCu9dllbrpDEtGBu97SeZZD zrApfzCcqIpAzprTweEZIduxDrf7ocBctMml++P8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1343933168; i=@elandsys.com; bh=2tKL1utv7ngtbBVLCDT3GVvsWv6OUHbtHcZgEB2lEsU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=usPBfHtSJvTkbNieg8jPn39bf3kyO1lCoZb3pSRzdH+zIILZqj5AH3xiKeqxJsdbd 4d8f0y41NeIg70or8oOdMzX8kcwLuR/LzP3uWTlKTQJWsMd0pU7y3n8eXkcRz/uXZ+ PQuWI/hLHd0OCql/2o1+eyCdtw1OypInlfWWyFXo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120802104620.04cc9828@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:45:11 -0700 To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org From: S Moonesamy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:30:21 -0700 Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Selection of NomCom volunteers 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, 02 Aug 2012 18:46:17 -0000 Hello, draft-moonesamy-nomcom-selection-00 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-nomcom-selection-00 ) is a proposal to update RFC 3777 to increase the number of volunteers who are eligible to serve on NomCom and to increase the selection of volunteers having different primary affiliations. In a nutshell the rules for eligibility suggested are: (a) Not a sitting member of the IAB, IESG or IAOC (b) Must have attended at least 4 out of the last 10 IETF meetings (c) Each NomCom member has a different affiliation Item (b) should broaden the pool of eligible volunteers. It also takes into account the 1-1-1 plan for venue selection. 21% of authors for recent RFCs are from five companies. 60% of NomCom 2011-2012 members were from three of these five companies. Item (c) is to ensure wider representativity and to allow more sponsors to participate in the selection of IAB, IESG and IAOC members. Regards, S. Moonesamy From agmalis@gmail.com Fri Aug 3 07:45:07 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 387FC21F8CB2 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:45:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.229 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.370, 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 MzO9FqPVqazH for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:45:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB4D21F8CA3 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:45:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so1013703yhq.31 for ; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 07:45:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=2J9TP9S0NtEp2gNYcnTFQLvM/6wWy9HbYOpjutuhO0U=; b=q+woA6aaku55/szFalmkZhef2ARjjOzs/1setOD7UA/rXv/RPfpPDDdap95aPDyffo A5D/58SQYWS34Whz+aQYTQN9t06nocg7n5DgDTcz4UV0lN3KaGSVSyLKz0/3pt7F1cSp CbX7XTY3igRb/7ACQsmAF+cGZbb3cFogevscuIFDhGqMvUi+RfN/Q8DkNUBOEdJ39Ptk sQUQLWqAcfvzrYC6Mbd8hz0JF1q9do8FgAwyMXET2Ch7pnqDsipXcEvSJuhfS2GwiGN1 yUPcWcRFqLYZnsvMdY/MIvouX+npomAY3dd9lRXoT0T8w8JzVCY9KUexYnMbWUpSY9OB ZcgA== Received: by 10.50.186.131 with SMTP id fk3mr11299625igc.31.1344005105760; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 07:45:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.90.229 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:44:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120802104620.04cc9828@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120802104620.04cc9828@elandnews.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:44:45 -0700 Message-ID: To: S Moonesamy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Selection of NomCom volunteers 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, 03 Aug 2012 14:45:07 -0000 I have a couple of comments. I think (a) should include the ISOC BoT, since they are a confirming body. I appreciate trying to widen the pool, but I still prefer the current rules for (b), you're more likely to be familiar with the people that currently contribute to the IETF. The 1-1-1 location plan for the IETF isn't hard and fast, anyway. Perhaps loosen it up a bit to be three out of the most recent six IETFs, rather than five. (c) sounds like a fine suggestion. Thanks, Andy On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hello, > > draft-moonesamy-nomcom-selection-00 ( > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-nomcom-selection-00 ) is a > proposal to update RFC 3777 to increase the number of volunteers who are > eligible to serve on NomCom and to increase the selection of volunteers > having different primary affiliations. In a nutshell the rules for > eligibility suggested are: > > (a) Not a sitting member of the IAB, IESG or IAOC > > (b) Must have attended at least 4 out of the last 10 IETF meetings > > (c) Each NomCom member has a different affiliation > > Item (b) should broaden the pool of eligible volunteers. It also takes into > account the 1-1-1 plan for venue selection. > > 21% of authors for recent RFCs are from five companies. 60% of NomCom > 2011-2012 members were from three of these five companies. Item (c) is to > ensure wider representativity and to allow more sponsors to participate in > the selection of IAB, IESG and IAOC members. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From sm@elandsys.com Fri Aug 3 12:12:20 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 5776E21F8E0B for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:12:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, 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 k-unJcuR8-rd for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:12:16 -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 EE8B821F8E04 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sm-THINK.elandsys.com ([41.136.232.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q73JBqQE011959 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:12:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1344021130; bh=Hh7JeTm8GohzgLs8i3dVFKDTVBZ7R3yj1MVed45mFxo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=xePsOmwJgBCKt0V9EIp0bQIA2Ww4aqiL76pliQc807GVZIrNTXQEqrhDZsDuf/x2L nco8KKjapxd0oBe91BjSr2bY//rik7LleSoq2BIGBZkSUw8l3oxxR/yW3xt8TioPBj vVO8eOOQKNAm0z6EqlPYlCkU5M5qA2YWApwHlBlY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1344021130; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Hh7JeTm8GohzgLs8i3dVFKDTVBZ7R3yj1MVed45mFxo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=4+0I32qE419mRNjgn57SFQA6xEtto33jNq92HUj1p7as52o+Zp95JzVDkRgnl298r pLJL5HRkjVdXe790ZlranqZpP60yWiTN/cA2OzQprOc00pZmO2sbuVo65HjL+4KXZt qpv2Vcj7/HaXO/MA26L8IFGa7OJfjPH7tSCC/Wo4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120803113935.07f9aaa8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:10:36 -0700 To: "Andrew G. Malis" From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120802104620.04cc9828@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Selection of NomCom volunteers 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, 03 Aug 2012 19:12:20 -0000 Hi Andy, At 07:44 AM 8/3/2012, Andrew G. Malis wrote: >I think (a) should include the ISOC BoT, since they are a confirming body. Thanks for the comments. It's already in the definition for "sitting member". I'll make this editorial change to Rule 15: Sitting members may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee. >I appreciate trying to widen the pool, but I still prefer the current >rules for (b), you're more likely to be familiar with the people that >currently contribute to the IETF. The 1-1-1 location plan for the IETF >isn't hard and fast, anyway. Perhaps loosen it up a bit to be three >out of the most recent six IETFs, rather than five. You raised an interesting point about "familiar with the people". I'll loosen it to three out of six. Regards, S. Moonesamy From sm@resistor.net Mon Aug 6 14:38:09 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 0EBD821E804A for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:38:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, 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 Kh+AcrEJNdML for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:38:05 -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 229C621E808D for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.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 q76LbvQI007073; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:38:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1344289084; bh=Z67bjMo4HDVdpPwqXCT88T4JBL2NZi0Eio6rdkl5QfA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=XsdOqiEg9u2xmRN8crDHlQbPPB056u3wIkmVk248b2zDQHCXu4I87q/XtJtajzc38 uMX51yAy69Q0bmtBhv5k7AVi39QIV6GeoTBeSBpv87xyo5qvICjr/rfp0x0sqf4gK1 ArEIc5aDvW3lyH4VoFb96Izp6KebdH9doVhiG/rA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1344289084; i=@resistor.net; bh=Z67bjMo4HDVdpPwqXCT88T4JBL2NZi0Eio6rdkl5QfA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=EAioKIJ+I/HKmzbmMnSjKthpeTiwiqidQY8EtjS+UCkPQuIPGScw+0QsvnbBXmtlM AiU4ZLaoWM+dmdOTEJ8ou2MgPI0za8eHWV+ptUiPS/BUfO3f0vaDSHUVLXkYukvhr1 M8o/BqMSkxAgcqMfOKPfXNeaIwMA7I7HFhcg/QLY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:36:53 -0700 To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: "Perala, Timo \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)" , Samuel Weiler Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:38:09 -0000 At 21:01 05-08-2012, NomCom Chair wrote: >The volunteers are listed below. Please let me know as soon as possible >if you see any problems with this list. (For example, you volunteered but >your name doesn't appear, or more likely, I misspelled your name.) The final list of NomCom volunteers comprises individuals from: 1. Nokia Siemens Networks 2. Nokia 3. Siemens A summary of the previous list of affiliations was posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74209.html There was a comment from an individual about Nokia being different from Nokia Siemens Networks is different from Siemens ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74203.html ). According to www.nokia.com, "Nokia Siemens Networks, jointly owned by Nokia and Siemens, is one of the leading providers of telecommunications infrastructure hardware, software and professional services globally". RFC 3777 does not define primary affiliation. I don't think that the IETF should as it set formal rules which can be "gamed". If RFC 3777 is to be followed NomCom can end up with six volunteers with affiliated to the three companies mentioned above. Let's say that I challenge the list of NomCom volunteers on the grounds of affiliation. The NomCom Chair will have to come up with an interpretation of RFC 3777. By doing that I am also putting into question the presumption of "good faith". Once a precedent is set it will be viewed as appropriate for other companies to follow that. It is easier to find another path if the process is not invoked. Can anyone suggest what that other path could be? Regards, -sm From lars@netapp.com Mon Aug 6 22:34:43 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 701FC21F861C for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:34:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.151, 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 LvKYKYnNydUh for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2A521F85F3 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:34:42 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,725,1336374000"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="673957462" Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2012 22:34:41 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.240]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q775Ycql028815; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.13]) by vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.240]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:34:38 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: SM Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers Thread-Index: AQHNc4hEiGeashASZk2/TDi42IIu6ZdNxXiAgACFeoA= Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:34:37 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.115] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_61E62BB2-7B4E-4C19-A5F9-87FCB65B2AD1"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Perala, Timo \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)" , Samuel Weiler , "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 05:34:43 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_61E62BB2-7B4E-4C19-A5F9-87FCB65B2AD1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, On Aug 6, 2012, at 23:36, SM wrote: > The final list of NomCom volunteers comprises individuals from: >=20 > 1. Nokia Siemens Networks > 2. Nokia > 3. Siemens >=20 > A summary of the previous list of affiliations was posted at = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74209.html There = was a comment from an individual about > Nokia being different from Nokia Siemens Networks is different from = Siemens ( = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74203.html ). = According to www.nokia.com, "Nokia Siemens Networks, jointly owned by = Nokia and Siemens, is one of the leading providers of telecommunications = infrastructure hardware, software and professional services globally". right. Companies own parts of other companies. But they remain separate = legal entities, and the volunteers have employment contracts with = usually only one one of those entities. > Once a precedent is set it will be viewed as appropriate for other = companies to follow that. It is easier to find another path if the = process is not invoked. Can anyone suggest what that other path could = be? I don't think there is a path. In the case above (and some others, e.g. = Sony-Ericsson when it still existed, or Alcatel-Lucent) the names of the = subsidiaries makes this clear, and the size of the shared owned by the = mother companies requires disclosure, but this is not always the case. = Furthermore, such acquisitions can happen while the NomCom is sitting. IMO this is similar to the affiliation issue with consultants, or dual = affiliations. (For example, I have a corporate affiliation and am an = adjunct professor, so I could in some cases rightfully use a university = affiliation, depending on who funds my attendance at any given time.) I don't think there is any sane way in handling this. Luckily, at the = moment this is not an issue for the vast majority of volunteers, so we = can simply decide to ignore it. (If Cisco, Huawei, Juniper and Ericsson = are starting to buy each other, then we will enter interesting times...) Lars PS: I have worked for Nokia in the past (but not NSN or Siemens).= --Apple-Mail=_61E62BB2-7B4E-4C19-A5F9-87FCB65B2AD1 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 hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDgwNzA1MzQzN1owIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFAH9 2E5FyWgzWOdq+WdKe5IK5r7MMIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAGuuJxFT dWlC5JHhgjey3GSpHsDLCGFTBV39Hho2GWmsNayPP+amH0YFn8am+bF2Z56/oHu9ofMhE9Yuh8dt Kzr7NzoKCGCphuxiQDgRpdIecSYh7hLkNS2C//WlsFNhncNtFVWvZ+z5JlwNcrezo0yq6iTeJows ll5W4ZXbjakPEiWrEC+Z9HRLzY58uzSxEVsO2Dn6XNiSEhzAC3ZDW6T2NkBYNF/sfaMqEg+j3u4V V2arFvirHm1iCaXkqPvHK5j/VthnvzHRZfZZcOx1MQw4W2bSYPqxwIPqUiSq7jizApSHYo3yaVx1 btjgUrejvmpw6ZcywRYdWEI0iMlGXR8AAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_61E62BB2-7B4E-4C19-A5F9-87FCB65B2AD1-- From sm@resistor.net Tue Aug 7 00:02:19 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 EEFF221F857D for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, 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 tRHJXCjFZlXv for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:02:17 -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 8819721F853A for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.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 q7772BEU018693; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:02:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1344322936; bh=qO98NAVy0nRzODI9mJo3PJgjTybnqIryCnU59KXfVtg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=iwSm/kFbliLxRoDpjyNUlsh1RZj1vwkd3/nOshxDmZYqcFO+x2B6vp9wKZCRBHtjC cHhfZ17S4gm9waK7OS8lqTzBaWl4P7RcJIjVnZzEl45SnC0ul+fEMP8TPfgzncH/g+ SzzmSzgD7R4TjDRywcD99uvRAFLd0oOweJeIMQ0U= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1344322936; i=@resistor.net; bh=qO98NAVy0nRzODI9mJo3PJgjTybnqIryCnU59KXfVtg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=H3EhPwuVJPSEQkLNng45y/SK98DIHqxlOtYjAieRREszlAnadnPFQEX/gzOanBfhh cFhkhaS8nSiJVCiE1A9q32a7gOcOhg+RAfEPlbf6ufajqam+C2T6x+rv2ULXETmWwP qaPVW/E1Rt2bIewfbGQ94LIaMlhQlESXEi9GOjyo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120806230556.08476f10@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:56:27 -0700 To: "Eggert, Lars" From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 07:02:19 -0000 Hi Lars, At 22:34 06-08-2012, Eggert, Lars wrote: >right. Companies own parts of other companies. But they remain >separate legal entities, and the volunteers have employment >contracts with usually only one one of those entities. Here's some examples from previous lists of volunteers (I removed the name of the individuals): Case 1: Cisco Systems/University of Oregon Meetecho/University of Napoli Verizon Inc./University of Texas at Dallas Case 2: Huawei Technologies (Huawei) Nokia Corporation (Nokia) Cisco Cisco Systems (Cisco) Cisco Systems GmbH (Cisco) Huawei USA (Huawei) Huawei Case 3: PT Taylor Consulting Inc. (Huawei) My assumption is that if the individuals followed legal separation as a guideline it would have complicated matters. >I don't think there is a path. In the case above (and some others, >e.g. Sony-Ericsson when it still existed, or Alcatel-Lucent) the >names of the subsidiaries makes this clear, and the size of the >shared owned by the mother companies requires disclosure, but this >is not always the case. The easy path is to pick a name (which I assume the individuals provided) and keep the selection process easy for the NomCom Chair. > Furthermore, such acquisitions can happen while the NomCom is sitting. RFC 3777 actually covers this case: "A change in the primary affiliation of a voting volunteer during the term of the nominating committee is not a cause to request the recall of that volunteer, even if the change would result in more than two voting volunteers with the same affiliation." >IMO this is similar to the affiliation issue with consultants, or >dual affiliations. (For example, I have a corporate affiliation and >am an adjunct professor, so I could in some cases rightfully use a >university affiliation, depending on who funds my attendance at any >given time.) Yes. >I don't think there is any sane way in handling this. Luckily, at >the moment this is not an issue Yes. > for the vast majority of volunteers, so we can simply decide to > ignore it. (If Cisco, Huawei, Juniper and Ericsson are starting to > buy each other, then we will enter interesting times...) The problem with waiting for it to be issue is that the NomCom process may end up being questioned then. Regards, -sm From dhc@dcrocker.net Tue Aug 7 09:40:59 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 3BE0421F86D1 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:40:59 -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 yY5Wq352VfFl for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6C221F86C7 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:40:58 -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 q77GerRg011850 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:40:54 -0700 Message-ID: <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 09:40:49 -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: "Eggert, Lars" References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> 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]); Tue, 07 Aug 2012 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Samuel Weiler , "" , "Perala, Timo \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 16:40:59 -0000 On 8/6/2012 10:34 PM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > right. Companies own parts of other companies. But they remain > separate legal entities, and the volunteers have employment contracts > with usually only one one of those entities. The rule about number of employees on Nomcom should, IMO, pertain to ownership relationships, not legal constructs. The concern is influence (conflict of interest). We can't do much about which companies do business with which other companies -- these, too, can create conflicts of interest. But straightforward ownership relations are simple to consider. (I think we can ignore ownership changes that happen during our process; we don't need the extra precision.) Nomcom needs as much diversity as it can get. Is attendance at IETF and volunteering for nomcom so limited that we cannot enforce enough separation to require corporate separation counts subsidiaries as a single company? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Wed Aug 8 21:05:53 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 31AE211E80F6 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 21:05:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.032 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.032 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.055, 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 TqasknQM+kdZ for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 21:05:52 -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 688F111E80AD for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 21:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgg6 with SMTP id gg6so51442lbb.31 for ; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:05:51 -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=51Pi7ESq7BJ1dghaZ1keq/JF1qM0FBAh08jq0METWMU=; b=zbThVgK0qDPe/zy+vQYdOn5hsOj18vbTynIJsaNealmg/hWYvYsxGsXMXus7OCW62s J3JiL5ONGKxxN4yFGa8GiFjkD1fiCEUzBCepV44glYDQPAMS3Xdg57xOVr68Sm75DyxU MpzcasWXyV5F/mcHcRwSLeKd1HNy4fb731dOL4N0iLtkp1fq771/r3cAqqs6eb7ODuwM Kr1f2YxwP0xdeLzyL/Z1LpPWYnTIdRYtx6f3zo+r4202zJoCIBRPBd0jc18h17v1i7bS MkNK8yWrk+JejcpGKGIdU2vy7K6q2NKdVUU8p6GDL1ThbZ5g3rqBDTKdmBhqdIDFdVhC y74g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.105.173 with SMTP id gn13mr20466495lab.20.1344485151266; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.17.133 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 21:05:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 00:05:51 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: FwXCweyv-cGkCB5eHy4pn52uREs Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: dcrocker@bbiw.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "" , Samuel Weiler , "Perala, Timo \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 04:05:53 -0000 > Nomcom needs as much diversity as it can get. 100% agreement here. > Is attendance at IETF and volunteering for nomcom so limited that we cannot > enforce enough separation to require corporate separation counts > subsidiaries as a single company? The problem is that this creates odd artifacts, so we have to decide how we handle them. Take the Nokia / Siemens / NSN example, and suppose we have an assortment of volunteers from each. Now: - A Nokia person is selected. Then an NSN person is selected. This would seem to block another Nokia selection (two "from Nokia" already), and another NSN selection... but would NOT block a Siemens selection. - A Nokia person is selected, then a Siemens person. Now an NSN person blocks all three companies from having any more, but either a Nokia or a Siemens selection still allows one from the other company, but not one from NSN. Etc. It's weird. It might be how we want it to be (or it might not; I'm ambivalent, and need to consider it more), but it's weird. Barry From dhc@dcrocker.net Thu Aug 9 07:59:09 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 3B45C21F8720 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 07:59:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, 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 uGIPuoTOu7fn for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 07:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D1021F86F3 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 07:59:08 -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 q79Ex4fw026237 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 07:59:05 -0700 Message-ID: <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 07:58:55 -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: Barry Leiba References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> 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, 09 Aug 2012 07:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 14:59:09 -0000 On 8/8/2012 9:05 PM, Barry Leiba wrote > The problem is that this creates odd artifacts, so we have to decide > how we handle them. > > Take the Nokia / Siemens / NSN example, and suppose we have an > assortment of volunteers from each. Now: Imagine a company with a number of independently-run "divisions". Very different product areas, different management up through general manager, etc. Imagine each sends people to the IETF and they volunteer for Nomcom. The current rule aggregates them into a single count. Imagine that each of those divisions is a corporate subsidiary of the same holding company. Do the current rules aggregate those folk into a single count? If not, they should. I'll claim that the arrangement you cited is merely a variant of a subsidiary arrangement. The fact that there are two "parent" companies does make this seem odd, but there is an ownership arrangement, and that's what the limitation rule applies to. The core difference between your vie and mine, I believe, is that you believe it is unfortunate to limit some folks' selection because of the artifact of some corporate relationships. Yet that's exactly what the limitation rule is for. What you call 'artifact' I call primary effect. The purpose of the rule is to limit Nomcom influence by any single organization. My own perspective is that we need to have an extremely rich diversity of participants. If we can't get that, we have a very large, very basic problem with our selection process. The limitation rule needs to be simple and easy to apply. No nuances. So, any ownership, employment or consulting relationship defines the boundaries of an aggregation pool. A person can be a member of more than one pool and are subject to the limitations of all of them. d/ ps. The limitation rule should also apply for consultants. Any consultant with a financial arrangement with an IETF-participating company should be counted in its limitation pool. Multiple clients means counting in /each/ of those companies. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From lars@netapp.com Thu Aug 9 08:12:20 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 7942721F87A7 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:12:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.451 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.148, 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 loXKysitnz1b for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:12:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0CA621F87A5 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:12:19 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,740,1336374000"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="675020661" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2012 08:12:04 -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 q79FC3qF014585; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.211]) by vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.34]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:12:02 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: "" Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers Thread-Index: AQHNc4hEiGeashASZk2/TDi42IIu6ZdNxXiAgACFeoCAALojgIACUbqAgAC2d4CAAAOqAA== Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:12:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <5023D02F.3020001@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=_D475AF38-02C7-4E35-A2F3-51621A28AABA"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Barry Leiba , "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 15:12:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D475AF38-02C7-4E35-A2F3-51621A28AABA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, On Aug 9, 2012, at 16:58, Dave Crocker wrote: > Imagine that each of those divisions is a corporate subsidiary of the = same holding company. > Do the current rules aggregate those folk into a single count? If = not, they should. can you think of a simple way to achieve this goal? I'm not at all = opposed to this view, but every way of handling this that I could come = up with was more complex than IMO warranted. Lars= --Apple-Mail=_D475AF38-02C7-4E35-A2F3-51621A28AABA 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 hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDgwOTE1MTIwMlowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFHQH 6t87Q0LY23CJU3DE1EZ+/1wMMIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAF/scAOC UpQqoCJ8w5VGKy1BHwK/ftpwR7Qv0jDVl/BGXc++eLYWdvsVsfevmbxNPYb9GndpAPX7UXWJLpXy w/IzgVvsA2+8D3RkqNkIrEW6KJt6hYoUDrxwkpJD1AC99iq0HOLF3BjWEZ6Sl5gq9eUhWKuOnL78 KqO1afCRaHbRQWys7DNDwiFq5bBPNR6lCiebuZOJEb7zbHf4+mfJnnqpHIBgnZAGjqDKXYYd/9u7 S9lHOw101tFHFlHgnovPmO3fcJfI+ok2gYpSop9GCrSagOuSchcdYhEel39vVJZA3DKYjZhaf7ts iNoUzkg3OHcJCc1jtJA/s7JnHiu4BTgAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_D475AF38-02C7-4E35-A2F3-51621A28AABA-- From barryleiba@gmail.com Thu Aug 9 08:27:41 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 9747921F877A for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:27:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.029 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.053, 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 PCJUyXlIleMn for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f44.google.com (mail-qa0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F7621F8694 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qadz3 with SMTP id z3so310379qad.10 for ; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:27:34 -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=5vhM5VEUvdlXneD6FCylvGWKuZW/cymQR1982Weq6Pw=; b=LFYixyghuvkLyeOA0OyRFW5U7q+evdT84nUG+Jfbeww9inELFHoY7Ld8LJ4ixZJqea lzUR1oKGCNetq47/LOBbdGFzpHWuR0makXaHhr9dE/ua3hkpuir5iBCtzrB/IobYmqeZ lc+Xo0OKb5b5rRNEXrgZ3eBlyyh6DzKeKrxUk2j47HWVpAOzsWFt3K3mVzc3kgsU9Tw3 0hJtjKTyN5hSLgQARfHjNmzp2SglRaCwwjHgND0+VEAKNoQXL2nq1Y6QOzz4I1HCs4k9 /kuEti3wAayRZGgbyP35N/ke/JSuA9Mse6PPUc+5HGFxXUkIWvpHSmn8inAWwBCBGHch tCNw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.171.174 with SMTP id av14mr5585517oec.61.1344526053932; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.80.198 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:27:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:27:33 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: qOIvtJybv4re9mqjiQigP5gUMt4 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54a3252d5fcfc04c6d6dd09 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 15:27:42 -0000 --bcaec54a3252d5fcfc04c6d6dd09 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 You appear to be missing my point. The fact that there are two parent companies is exactly the thing that makes it difficult: we could have two nomcom members from Nokia AND two from Siemens, for a total of four... OR two from NSN, which would block any others from either Nokia or Siemens. That's inconsistent. Barry On Thursday, August 9, 2012, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 8/8/2012 9:05 PM, Barry Leiba wrote > >> The problem is that this creates odd artifacts, so we have to decide >> how we handle them. >> >> Take the Nokia / Siemens / NSN example, and suppose we have an >> assortment of volunteers from each. Now: >> > > > Imagine a company with a number of independently-run "divisions". Very > different product areas, different management up through general manager, > etc. Imagine each sends people to the IETF and they volunteer for Nomcom. > > The current rule aggregates them into a single count. > > Imagine that each of those divisions is a corporate subsidiary of the same > holding company. > > Do the current rules aggregate those folk into a single count? If not, > they should. > > I'll claim that the arrangement you cited is merely a variant of a > subsidiary arrangement. The fact that there are two "parent" companies > does make this seem odd, but there is an ownership arrangement, and that's > what the limitation rule applies to. > > The core difference between your vie and mine, I believe, is that you > believe it is unfortunate to limit some folks' selection because of the > artifact of some corporate relationships. Yet that's exactly what the > limitation rule is for. > > What you call 'artifact' I call primary effect. The purpose of the rule > is to limit Nomcom influence by any single organization. > > My own perspective is that we need to have an extremely rich diversity of > participants. If we can't get that, we have a very large, very basic > problem with our selection process. > > The limitation rule needs to be simple and easy to apply. No nuances. So, > any ownership, employment or consulting relationship defines the boundaries > of an aggregation pool. A person can be a member of more than one pool and > are subject to the limitations of all of them. > > > d/ > > ps. The limitation rule should also apply for consultants. Any consultant > with a financial arrangement with an IETF-participating company should be > counted in its limitation pool. Multiple clients means counting in /each/ > of those companies. > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > --bcaec54a3252d5fcfc04c6d6dd09 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You appear to be missing my point. =A0The fact that there are two parent co= mpanies is exactly the thing that makes it difficult: we could have two nom= com members from Nokia AND two from Siemens, for a total of four... OR two = from NSN, which would block any others from either Nokia or Siemens. =A0Tha= t's inconsistent.

Barry

On Thursday, August 9, 2012, Dave = Crocker wrote:

On 8/8/2012 9:05 PM, Barry Leiba wrote
The problem is that this creates odd artifacts, so we have to decide
how we handle them.

Take the Nokia / Siemens / NSN example, and suppose we have an
assortment of volunteers from each. =A0Now:


Imagine a company with a number of independently-run "divisions".= Very different product areas, different management up through general mana= ger, etc. =A0Imagine each sends people to the IETF and they volunteer for N= omcom.

The current rule aggregates them into a single count.

Imagine that each of those divisions is a corporate subsidiary of the same = holding company.

Do the current rules aggregate those folk into a single count? =A0If not, t= hey should.

I'll claim that the arrangement you cited is merely a variant of a subs= idiary arrangement. =A0The fact that there are two "parent" compa= nies does make this seem odd, but there is an ownership arrangement, and th= at's what the limitation rule applies to.

The core difference between your vie and mine, I believe, is that you belie= ve it is unfortunate to limit some folks' selection because of the arti= fact of some corporate relationships. =A0Yet that's exactly what the li= mitation rule is for.

What you call 'artifact' I call primary effect. =A0The purpose of t= he rule is to limit Nomcom influence by any single organization.

My own perspective is that we need to have an extremely rich diversity of p= articipants. =A0If we can't get that, we have a very large, very basic = problem with our selection process.

The limitation rule needs to be simple and easy to apply. =A0No nuances. So= , any ownership, employment or consulting relationship defines the boundari= es of an aggregation pool. =A0A person can be a member of more than one poo= l and are subject to the limitations of all of them.


d/

ps. The limitation rule should also apply for consultants. =A0Any consultan= t with a financial arrangement with an IETF-participating company should be= counted in its limitation pool. =A0Multiple clients means counting in /eac= h/ of those companies.

--
=A0Dave Crocker
=A0Brandenburg InternetWorking
=A0bbiw.net
--bcaec54a3252d5fcfc04c6d6dd09-- From dhc@dcrocker.net Thu Aug 9 08:36:56 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 18DFB21F86D8 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:36:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, 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 VZemUUJNJP-p for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B8A21F8768 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:36:54 -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 q79FaoBb027071 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:36:50 -0700 Message-ID: <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:36:41 -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: Barry Leiba References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> 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, 09 Aug 2012 08:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 15:36:57 -0000 On 8/9/2012 8:27 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > You appear to be missing my point. The fact that there are two parent > companies is exactly the thing that makes it difficult: we could have > two nomcom members from Nokia AND two from Siemens, for a total of > four... OR two from NSN, which would block any others from either Nokia > or Siemens. That's inconsistent. You seem to think that it's inappropriate to count Nokia and Siemens folk together. Why? They have an ownership arrangement and that's the focus of the rule. What is it that makes it essential to count applicants from these two companies separately, given the underlying concern for ensuring diversity and independence on Nomcom? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From rcallon@juniper.net Thu Aug 9 09:22:52 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 A428C21F86D9 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:22:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.543 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, 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 zrUqI6Pv8nYz for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og115.obsmtp.com (exprod7og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.217]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AA1E21F86BA for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob115.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUCPj1m1TVlbMiKviDzX+kJoTge+51wXI@postini.com; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:22:51 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:21:41 -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; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:21:40 -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; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:21:38 -0400 From: Ross Callon To: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" , Barry Leiba Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:21:37 -0400 Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers Thread-Index: Ac12RNnj1ShPaoYrT0So+3F3qBa9tgAAcUtw Message-ID: References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> 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: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 16:22:52 -0000 But Nokia and Siemens are separate independent companies. They happen to ha= ve cooperated on one project (NSN), but otherwise are independent and compe= te with each other.=20 Thus Nokia and Siemens should each be allowed to have two members on nomcom= , if they happened to get picked.=20 The issue comes up regarding what happens to the Nokia and Siemens quota's = if someone from NSN happens to be selected for nomcom.=20 There are a few constraints which are relatively straightforward: The number of voting members from Nokia must be less than or equal to 2.=20 The number of voting members from Siemens must be less than or equal to 2. The number of voting members from NSN must be less than or equal to 2.=20 If it is correct that NSN is wholely owned by Nokia plus Siemens, then we = might=20 add a constraint that the maximum number total from all of Nokia, plus Sie= mens,=20 plus NSN must be less than or equal to 4. (since there are only two indepe= ndent companies here, not three).=20 If these are the only constraints, then this could lead to the result that = if first two Nokia people are picked, then two NSN people are picked, then = Siemens would not be able to get anyone on nomcom (since essentially their = quota is used up by NSN). One option is to say "sorry, that is how the cons= traints work". Another possible way around this would be to add two more co= nstraints: Nokia plus NSN is less than or equal to 3, and Siemens plus NSN = is less than or equal to 3.=20 Ross -----Original Message----- From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org] On= Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:37 AM To: Barry Leiba Cc: Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers On 8/9/2012 8:27 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > You appear to be missing my point. The fact that there are two parent > companies is exactly the thing that makes it difficult: we could have > two nomcom members from Nokia AND two from Siemens, for a total of > four... OR two from NSN, which would block any others from either Nokia > or Siemens. That's inconsistent. You seem to think that it's inappropriate to count Nokia and Siemens=20 folk together. Why? They have an ownership arrangement and that's the focus of the rule. What is it that makes it essential to count applicants from these two=20 companies separately, given the underlying concern for ensuring=20 diversity and independence on Nomcom? d/ --=20 Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net --=20 Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ ietf-nomcom mailing list ietf-nomcom@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com Thu Aug 9 09:36:41 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 5DB3221F86EE for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 r8f8t3SE1j50 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:36:40 -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 99FBD21F86EA for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgg6 with SMTP id gg6so428016lbb.31 for ; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:36:38 -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=cZR3ZuWnfvw4Ly8KfkOMygsGhvKGfqjLJy793M0NJ+Q=; b=z7oGc11MIKqLZPLRytbI2fXzGonKWkokTKq/hzyIDU48WOnuh9Va/GQ1lMZw6IoYqh kekx98TxJVnnYUhO1GPHac4KktpLh205ITXdWeLVjPr5SmkTghf3xAurEfZ1nPnCHTbP CfjqRBxodXR/DjP4kokXTTcHjDpjEtxE1eBf+9/Z38e8BGrBxzDdaqf6YhrnaKhHv74p mLBkapgFWxcvH2xc5TsMXgzQorXUvurXquyerNVQXQ68o/gzuPAvwcvUsIVxpIyWd6Bi dFriD41Z/8a4OiGUtLI0TDLVhS4nlV1W1M8I9A9hdpqH/FCt/Yt5GVlyWrFHurSSYc7h NGzg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.105.132 with SMTP id gm4mr13880432lab.8.1344530198417; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.85.196 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:36:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:36:38 -0500 Message-ID: From: Mary Barnes To: Ross Callon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d040715f5ddd12904c6d7d4dc Cc: Barry Leiba , "" , "dcrocker@bbiw.net" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 16:36:41 -0000 --f46d040715f5ddd12904c6d7d4dc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm personally not at all concerned about the Nokia/Siemens Enterprise/NSN employees being considered as separate entities and there is only one volunteer from NSN and one from Siemens Enterprise (which is a different entity from the Siemens that is part of the NSN venture). My concern with this list of volunteers is that I believe contractors should be required to disclose who funds their IETF participation. This is generally what is expected of the nominees for the open positions, so I think it should equally apply to the nomcom members that are deciding who should fill the positions. Mary. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Ross Callon wrote: > But Nokia and Siemens are separate independent companies. They happen to > have cooperated on one project (NSN), but otherwise are independent and > compete with each other. > > Thus Nokia and Siemens should each be allowed to have two members on > nomcom, if they happened to get picked. > > The issue comes up regarding what happens to the Nokia and Siemens quota's > if someone from NSN happens to be selected for nomcom. > > There are a few constraints which are relatively straightforward: > > The number of voting members from Nokia must be less than or equal > to 2. > The number of voting members from Siemens must be less than or > equal to 2. > The number of voting members from NSN must be less than or equal > to 2. > > If it is correct that NSN is wholely owned by Nokia plus Siemens, > then we might > add a constraint that the maximum number total from all of Nokia, > plus Siemens, > plus NSN must be less than or equal to 4. (since there are only > two independent > companies here, not three). > > If these are the only constraints, then this could lead to the result that > if first two Nokia people are picked, then two NSN people are picked, then > Siemens would not be able to get anyone on nomcom (since essentially their > quota is used up by NSN). One option is to say "sorry, that is how the > constraints work". Another possible way around this would be to add two > more constraints: Nokia plus NSN is less than or equal to 3, and Siemens > plus NSN is less than or equal to 3. > > Ross > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:37 AM > To: Barry Leiba > Cc: > Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers > > > On 8/9/2012 8:27 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > > You appear to be missing my point. The fact that there are two parent > > companies is exactly the thing that makes it difficult: we could have > > two nomcom members from Nokia AND two from Siemens, for a total of > > four... OR two from NSN, which would block any others from either Nokia > > or Siemens. That's inconsistent. > > > You seem to think that it's inappropriate to count Nokia and Siemens > folk together. Why? > > They have an ownership arrangement and that's the focus of the rule. > > What is it that makes it essential to count applicants from these two > companies separately, given the underlying concern for ensuring > diversity and independence on Nomcom? > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > --f46d040715f5ddd12904c6d7d4dc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm personally not at all concerned about the Nokia/Siemens Enterprise/= NSN employees being considered as separate entities and there is only one v= olunteer from NSN and one from Siemens Enterprise (which is a different ent= ity from the Siemens that is part of the NSN venture).=A0

My concern with this list of volunteers is that I believe co= ntractors should be required to disclose who funds their IETF participation= . =A0This is generally what is expected of the nominees for the open positi= ons, so I think it should equally apply to the nomcom members that are deci= ding who should fill the positions.=A0

Mary.=A0

On Thu, Aug 9, 20= 12 at 11:21 AM, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> wrote:
But Nokia and Siemens are separate independent companies. They happen to ha= ve cooperated on one project (NSN), but otherwise are independent and compe= te with each other.

Thus Nokia and Siemens should each be allowed to have two members on nomcom= , if they happened to get picked.

The issue comes up regarding what happens to the Nokia and Siemens quota= 9;s if someone from NSN happens to be selected for nomcom.

There are a few constraints which are relatively straightforward:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The number of voting members from Nokia must be less than o= r equal to 2.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The number of voting members from Siemens must be less than= or equal to 2.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The number of voting members from NSN must be less than or = equal to 2.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 If it is correct that NSN is wholely owned by Nokia plus Si= emens, then we might
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 add a constraint that the maximum number total from all of = Nokia, plus Siemens,
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 plus NSN must be less than or equal to 4. (since there are = only two independent
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 companies here, not three).

If these are the only constraints, then this could lead to the result that = if first two Nokia people are picked, then two NSN people are picked, then = Siemens would not be able to get anyone on nomcom (since essentially their = quota is used up by NSN). One option is to say "sorry, that is how the= constraints work". Another possible way around this would be to add t= wo more constraints: Nokia plus NSN is less than or equal to 3, and Siemens= plus NSN is less than or equal to 3.

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@i= etf.org [mailto:ietf-no= mcom-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:37 AM
To: Barry Leiba
Cc: <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>= ;
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers


On 8/9/2012 8:27 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> You appear to be missing my point. =A0The fact that there are two pare= nt
> companies is exactly the thing that makes it difficult: we could have<= br> > two nomcom members from Nokia AND two from Siemens, for a total of
> four... OR two from NSN, which would block any others from either Noki= a
> or Siemens. =A0That's inconsistent.


You seem to think that it's inappropriate to count Nokia and Siemens folk together. =A0Why?

They have an ownership arrangement and that's the focus of the rule.
What is it that makes it essential to count applicants from these two
companies separately, given the underlying concern for ensuring
diversity and independence on Nomcom?

d/

--
=A0 Dave Crocker
=A0 Brandenburg InternetWorking
=A0 bbiw.net

--
=A0 Dave Crocker
=A0 Brandenburg InternetWorking
=A0 bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing list
ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
_______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing list
ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

--f46d040715f5ddd12904c6d7d4dc-- From lars@netapp.com Thu Aug 9 09:48:31 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 08C8921F8749 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:48:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.454 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, 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 znEx7hmH7zOu for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90EE021F8747 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,741,1336374000"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="675053921" Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2012 09:47:50 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.240]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q79GloS4018894; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.211]) by vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.240]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:47:49 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Mary Barnes Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers Thread-Index: AQHNc4hEiGeashASZk2/TDi42IIu6ZdNxXiAgACFeoCAALojgIACUbqAgAC2d4CAAAgAgIAAAo2AgAAMjoCAAAQyAIAAAx8A Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:47:48 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> 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=_F4D71C32-44B5-4290-849B-746750D9866E"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Barry Leiba , "" , "dcrocker@bbiw.net" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 16:48:31 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F4D71C32-44B5-4290-849B-746750D9866E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Aug 9, 2012, at 18:36, Mary Barnes wrote: > My concern with this list of volunteers is that I believe contractors > should be required to disclose who funds their IETF participation. +1 Lars --Apple-Mail=_F4D71C32-44B5-4290-849B-746750D9866E 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 hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDgwOTE2NDc0OFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFChE 13oFiyGon+K5ObzOW4KpMi7AMIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBACmejrnO h2zRpDlIx+cYsJVgYiHpawLQa2gxSIcUQx3Y9ID3U62aoHJn55eUnh2kQ9vv9WhSynxg7/SFyn8L pSTebaUlt4rHf2GhjPcmQDrzSYdZ9zo7RhKBeWqjTcZrtEXgp/0BW5d3xnXE0Iy/bHd0oUKafVln By76ndIO8STvc8bdQ7cooW4OSEIXMJGSPeo9hKDhbhFBx+DOAKUoskwCBDVh2CunbJDwoM71aXMS iBilLYpX0omhLmLoWYHngvZTbuNTHlk3wcWZ7Ygdf67JfQairFy2kifu4VhyJmtEz3EzSn/sZ32l YawtE5kqKsO68YQYsFyPkYWXws6V1t8AAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_F4D71C32-44B5-4290-849B-746750D9866E-- From rcallon@juniper.net Thu Aug 9 09:52:58 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 3606121F875C for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:52:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Spw01Ej6dT-s for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4EC021F875B for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:52:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUCPq3k4jvjKjhPxrqig8Q8SzSykAQ0zb@postini.com; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:52:53 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:50:36 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:50:35 -0400 From: Ross Callon To: Mary Barnes Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:50:34 -0400 Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers Thread-Index: Ac12TShOjZGYoq81S5GwWByBmNauAwAAbutA Message-ID: References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C713F9E21DEMBX01WFjnprn_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Barry Leiba , "" , "dcrocker@bbiw.net" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 16:52:58 -0000 --_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C713F9E21DEMBX01WFjnprn_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > My concern with this list of volunteers is that I believe contractors sho= uld be required to > disclose who funds their IETF participation. This is generally what is e= xpected of the > nominees for the open positions, so I think it should equally apply to th= e nomcom\ > members that are deciding who should fill the positions. > > Mary. I agree. Ross --_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C713F9E21DEMBX01WFjnprn_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> My concern with this list of volunteers is t= hat I believe contractors should be required to

> disclose wh= o funds their IETF participation.  This is generally what is expected = of the

> nominees for the open positions, so I think it shoul= d equally apply to the nomcom\

> membe= rs that are deciding who should fill the positions. =

> 

> Mary. 

I agree.

Ross

 

= --_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C713F9E21DEMBX01WFjnprn_-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Aug 9 09:57:47 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 BEFDB21F8779 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:57:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.538 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 xK+itNZV06Gy for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822F921F8770 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q79Gvj88027064 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:57:45 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q79GviI3027058 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:57:44 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:57:41 +0100 Message-ID: <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIITHSGLESavflusv2c3bjGvwJRYgGEiJJ1AjDMiIsAwMA5OwD2ngYjAV2wYjwCvSpnkQJpckPXAouA9f2WaCEfYA== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk 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, 09 Aug 2012 16:57:47 -0000 when we play this game in contracts, we usually talk about "control" or "ownership". These are usually expressed in a percentage stake. That may be a very useful way to proceed here. Noting that ownership is not the same as control, but that while ownership can be measured, control is harder to determine. It is clear (to me) that if company X owns 5% of the stock of company Y, this should not be an issue for NomCom selection. It is also clear (to me) that if company X owns 100% of company Y, this is something we want to think about. So are we just searching for a percentage? Does "less than 50%" do the trick? Is there some other magic number? I might make the same point wrt consultants. If, like me, a consultant gets >75% of their income from a single source, then they should declare affiliation to that source. If they get 5% from a source, do we also expect to see that listed? I don't think so. Finally: if I stand for NomCom and have stock in company Z, do I need to declare that? Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Ross Callon > Sent: 09 August 2012 17:22 > To: dcrocker@bbiw.net; Barry Leiba > Cc: > Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers > > But Nokia and Siemens are separate independent companies. They happen to > have cooperated on one project (NSN), but otherwise are independent and > compete with each other. > > Thus Nokia and Siemens should each be allowed to have two members on > nomcom, if they happened to get picked. > > The issue comes up regarding what happens to the Nokia and Siemens quota's if > someone from NSN happens to be selected for nomcom. > > There are a few constraints which are relatively straightforward: > > The number of voting members from Nokia must be less than or equal to > 2. > The number of voting members from Siemens must be less than or equal > to 2. > The number of voting members from NSN must be less than or equal to > 2. > > If it is correct that NSN is wholely owned by Nokia plus Siemens, then we > might > add a constraint that the maximum number total from all of Nokia, plus > Siemens, > plus NSN must be less than or equal to 4. (since there are only two > independent > companies here, not three). > > If these are the only constraints, then this could lead to the result that if first two > Nokia people are picked, then two NSN people are picked, then Siemens would > not be able to get anyone on nomcom (since essentially their quota is used up by > NSN). One option is to say "sorry, that is how the constraints work". Another > possible way around this would be to add two more constraints: Nokia plus NSN > is less than or equal to 3, and Siemens plus NSN is less than or equal to 3. > > Ross > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:37 AM > To: Barry Leiba > Cc: > Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers > > > On 8/9/2012 8:27 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > > You appear to be missing my point. The fact that there are two parent > > companies is exactly the thing that makes it difficult: we could have > > two nomcom members from Nokia AND two from Siemens, for a total of > > four... OR two from NSN, which would block any others from either Nokia > > or Siemens. That's inconsistent. > > > You seem to think that it's inappropriate to count Nokia and Siemens > folk together. Why? > > They have an ownership arrangement and that's the focus of the rule. > > What is it that makes it essential to count applicants from these two > companies separately, given the underlying concern for ensuring > diversity and independence on Nomcom? > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From dhc@dcrocker.net Thu Aug 9 10:09:16 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 5625D21F8792 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:09:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, 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 3+pJutaFNRgk for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA41921F8790 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:09:15 -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 q79H9EYK028943 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:09:15 -0700 Message-ID: <5023EEB1.7040103@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:09:05 -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: "" References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> 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, 09 Aug 2012 10:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ietf-nomcom] nomcom volunteers - contractor funding 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, 09 Aug 2012 17:09:16 -0000 On 8/9/2012 9:36 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: > My concern with this list of volunteers is that I believe contractors > should be required to disclose who funds their IETF participation. This > is generally what is expected of the nominees for the open positions, so > I think it should equally apply to the nomcom members that are deciding > who should fill the positions. This is a completely separable topic, so let's separate it. I'm a consultant. I believe that I should be required to list any clients I have who participate in the IETF[1] and that I should count in their limitation pool. In other words, I agree with Mary. This isn't a subtle issue, subject to nuance, IMO. d/ [1] My first draft of text for this said "who have an interest in the IETF" but then I realized that almost every company that does any Internet-related business "has an interest in" the IETF. So I think the more direct "participates in" language makes more practical sense. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From john-ietf@jck.com Thu Aug 9 11:08:53 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 2E9DC21F873C for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, 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 APFc6shUmuM9 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7633821F86FC for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:08:52 -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 1SzX46-000PTB-Oo; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:02:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:08:32 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Ross Callon , dcrocker@bbiw.net, Barry Leiba Message-ID: <2C3E559091C2506FE3728CBE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@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: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 18:08:53 -0000 --On Thursday, August 09, 2012 12:21 -0400 Ross Callon wrote: > But Nokia and Siemens are separate independent companies. They > happen to have cooperated on one project (NSN), but otherwise > are independent and compete with each other. > > Thus Nokia and Siemens should each be allowed to have two > members on nomcom, if they happened to get picked. > > The issue comes up regarding what happens to the Nokia and > Siemens quota's if someone from NSN happens to be selected for > nomcom. > > There are a few constraints which are relatively > straightforward: > > The number of voting members from Nokia must be less than or > equal to 2. The number of voting members from Siemens must > be less than or equal to 2. The number of voting members from > NSN must be less than or equal to 2. > > If it is correct that NSN is wholely owned by Nokia plus > Siemens, then we might add a constraint that the maximum > number total from all of Nokia, plus Siemens, plus NSN must > be less than or equal to 4. (since there are only two > independent companies here, not three). > > If these are the only constraints, then this could lead to the > result that if first two Nokia people are picked, then two NSN > people are picked, then Siemens would not be able to get > anyone on nomcom (since essentially their quota is used up by > NSN). One option is to say "sorry, that is how the constraints > work". Another possible way around this would be to add two > more constraints: Nokia plus NSN is less than or equal to 3, > and Siemens plus NSN is less than or equal to 3. Ross, I am sympathetic to what you are trying to do here, but I think it leads to an unacceptable result. Suppose that, through another industry consolidation next year, a new entity emerged called ABC, precisely 1/3 owned by Acme Corp, Beer Corp, and Cola Corp, each of whom maintains a significant participation presence in the IETF and intends to continue to do so. I agree with those who think that 5% - 10% ownership participation should not be a major issue, but my threshold for concern definitely sets in at 1/3 and maybe even at 1/4. To make this more amusing, assuming that there are periodic technical coordination meetings among relevant parts of the parent companies and the subsidiary so that the parents and the subsidiary avoid unintentionally competing with each other or having conflicts about strategies. Antitrust/ competitiveness laws might have prevented Acme, Beer, and Cola from meeting with each other on that basis before the subsidiary was created but some of those barriers come down if they are just coordinating with a joint subsidiary whose creation got past the regulators. Now, applying your logic, Acme + Beer + Cola + ABE should be permitted up to six Nomcom slots if the draw comes out that way, in spite of the fact that the four organizations are collaborating on technical strategy. They presumably would not be coordinating on IETF leadership strategy, but the barriers are thin and all might think they would benefit from a concentration of "friendly" people on the IESG or IAB. Six is a majority of the Nomcom and would make me (at least) very nervous. I think that, if a pair or group of companies form strong alliances (formation of a joint subsidiary is one such alliance, but not the only one), then it is wiser to treat them as a single entity for Nomcom purposes even though one could argue it discriminates somewhat against the parents. john From dhc@dcrocker.net Thu Aug 9 11:23:37 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 97A2C21F86D1 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:23:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, 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 fJWHW9XLSLZ1 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:23:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4CA21F86B3 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:23:36 -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 q79INZDG030026 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:23:36 -0700 Message-ID: <5024001E.10704@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:23:26 -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: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> 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, 09 Aug 2012 11:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 18:23:37 -0000 > It is clear (to me) that if company X owns 5% of the stock of company Y, this > should not be an issue for NomCom selection. > It is also clear (to me) that if company X owns 100% of company Y, this is > something we want to think about. The lines of thinking that Adrian, Ross and others are applying are all reasonable. However as reasonable as these approaches seem they create a number of problems. First is that the rules try to be subtle, clever and careful, such as by determining the transitional percentage. On the average most groups -- and especially ours -- aren't very good at being subtle, clever or careful. The rule at issue here is a kind of law and it has been observed that laws do not operate with surgical precision. Second is that these rules are trying to apply a particular model in determining possible/likely influence upon Nomcom members. If we are going to try to apply an influence model, it needs to have some empirical basis. Unfortunately there has been quite a bit of research about what influences individuals in decision-making, and many of the results are highly counter-intuitive. For example, one line of that research suggests that less money can have more influence than more money. This motivates returning to an underlying question: Why is it essential that we allow more than two people from related companies onto Nomcom? Why is it not better to ensure more highly diverse participation? So I'll again strongly suggest the simple rule: Any ownership in common links companies into the same pool. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Aug 9 11:25:05 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 BD24B21F86B3 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 zjDq9FUpgZsT for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D681621F86AD for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:25:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q79IOr8M019534; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:24:53 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q79IOq8M019524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:24:52 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'John C Klensin'" , "'Ross Callon'" , , "'Barry Leiba'" References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <2C3E559091C2506FE3728CBE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <2C3E559091C2506FE3728CBE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:24:50 +0100 Message-ID: <04e901cd765c$43e9d880$cbbd8980$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIITHSGLESavflusv2c3bjGvwJRYgGEiJJ1AjDMiIsAwMA5OwD2ngYjAV2wYjwCvSpnkQJpckPXAouA9f0B1w6eoJZZgrCg Content-Language: en-gb Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk 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, 09 Aug 2012 18:25:05 -0000 Can we get Beer Corp to sponsor an IETF meeting? > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of John C Klensin > Sent: 09 August 2012 19:09 > To: Ross Callon; dcrocker@bbiw.net; Barry Leiba > Cc: > Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers > > > > --On Thursday, August 09, 2012 12:21 -0400 Ross Callon > wrote: > > > But Nokia and Siemens are separate independent companies. They > > happen to have cooperated on one project (NSN), but otherwise > > are independent and compete with each other. > > > > Thus Nokia and Siemens should each be allowed to have two > > members on nomcom, if they happened to get picked. > > > > The issue comes up regarding what happens to the Nokia and > > Siemens quota's if someone from NSN happens to be selected for > > nomcom. > > > > There are a few constraints which are relatively > > straightforward: > > > > The number of voting members from Nokia must be less than or > > equal to 2. The number of voting members from Siemens must > > be less than or equal to 2. The number of voting members from > > NSN must be less than or equal to 2. > > > > If it is correct that NSN is wholely owned by Nokia plus > > Siemens, then we might add a constraint that the maximum > > number total from all of Nokia, plus Siemens, plus NSN must > > be less than or equal to 4. (since there are only two > > independent companies here, not three). > > > > If these are the only constraints, then this could lead to the > > result that if first two Nokia people are picked, then two NSN > > people are picked, then Siemens would not be able to get > > anyone on nomcom (since essentially their quota is used up by > > NSN). One option is to say "sorry, that is how the constraints > > work". Another possible way around this would be to add two > > more constraints: Nokia plus NSN is less than or equal to 3, > > and Siemens plus NSN is less than or equal to 3. > > Ross, > > I am sympathetic to what you are trying to do here, but I think > it leads to an unacceptable result. Suppose that, through > another industry consolidation next year, a new entity emerged > called ABC, precisely 1/3 owned by Acme Corp, Beer Corp, and > Cola Corp, each of whom maintains a significant participation > presence in the IETF and intends to continue to do so. I agree > with those who think that 5% - 10% ownership participation > should not be a major issue, but my threshold for concern > definitely sets in at 1/3 and maybe even at 1/4. > > To make this more amusing, assuming that there are periodic > technical coordination meetings among relevant parts of the > parent companies and the subsidiary so that the parents and the > subsidiary avoid unintentionally competing with each other or > having conflicts about strategies. Antitrust/ competitiveness > laws might have prevented Acme, Beer, and Cola from meeting with > each other on that basis before the subsidiary was created but > some of those barriers come down if they are just coordinating > with a joint subsidiary whose creation got past the regulators. > > Now, applying your logic, Acme + Beer + Cola + ABE should be > permitted up to six Nomcom slots if the draw comes out that way, > in spite of the fact that the four organizations are > collaborating on technical strategy. They presumably would not > be coordinating on IETF leadership strategy, but the barriers > are thin and all might think they would benefit from a > concentration of "friendly" people on the IESG or IAB. Six is > a majority of the Nomcom and would make me (at least) very > nervous. > > I think that, if a pair or group of companies form strong > alliances (formation of a joint subsidiary is one such alliance, > but not the only one), then it is wiser to treat them as a > single entity for Nomcom purposes even though one could argue it > discriminates somewhat against the parents. > > john > > > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Aug 9 11:31:54 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 89BBE21F8723 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:31:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 iqPcJMk8zr1j for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BECD921F85AC for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:31:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q79IVgwq015309; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:31:42 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q79IVfJV015301 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:31:41 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <5024001E.10704@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <5024001E.10704@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:31:38 +0100 Message-ID: <04ea01cd765d$37bd2070$a7376150$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIITHSGLESavflusv2c3bjGvwJRYgGEiJJ1AjDMiIsAwMA5OwD2ngYjAV2wYjwCvSpnkQJpckPXAouA9f0BuTFLeQFluVtplk9Es0A= Content-Language: en-gb Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk 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, 09 Aug 2012 18:31:54 -0000 Dave, > So I'll again strongly suggest the simple rule: > > Any ownership in common links companies into the same pool. This is attractive, but doesn't it break down when Company X buys one share of common stock in Company Y? And it opens up my question about whether I can be selected to serve on NomCom if I personally hold stock in a company that already has two people selected to serve. You mentioned subtlety and the difficulty of applying it. I think that we may have to swing in the opposite direction and make bold, but high-level statements about "significant control". After all, the stock market does the same thing. Oh, and if you remain really worried, there are anti-trust laws as well. A From dhc@dcrocker.net Thu Aug 9 11:34:46 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 4646221F8707 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:34:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, 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 Qi6vV1jhKPap for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B022521F85D1 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:34:45 -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 q79IYi4q030275 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:34:45 -0700 Message-ID: <502402BB.7060100@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:34:35 -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: adrian@olddog.co.uk References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> 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, 09 Aug 2012 11:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] nomcom volunteers - contractor funding 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, 09 Aug 2012 18:34:46 -0000 On 8/9/2012 9:57 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > I might make the same point wrt consultants. If, like me, a consultant gets >75% > of their income from a single source, then they should declare affiliation to > that source. If they get 5% from a source, do we also expect to see that listed? > I don't think so. > > Finally: if I stand for NomCom and have stock in company Z, do I need to declare > that? To re-apply my comments on influence models, wrt consulting and the like: Again, something like a 5% vs. 75% rule does not reflect the actual way people are influenced in their decision-making. Keep the rule utterly trivial: If a person has /any/ financial arrangement with a company (any money or stock) then they must count in that company's limitation pool. The nature of limitation rules is such that any goal of their providing real committee independence frankly requires that the rules are unfair to many individuals. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From rcallon@juniper.net Thu Aug 9 11:40:12 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 E29E921F8751 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:40:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.546 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, 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 MBElyWH8fqza for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E221421F8750 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUCQEACyTjtlpDpDH8zvgYT+i4zJ/SZf/@postini.com; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:40:06 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:38:51 -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; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:38:51 -0400 From: Ross Callon To: John C Klensin , "dcrocker@bbiw.net" , Barry Leiba Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:38:49 -0400 Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers Thread-Index: Ac12Wgg6pfRMfgEhQomEG8bkw+nXlQAAGKbw Message-ID: References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <2C3E559091C2506FE3728CBE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <2C3E559091C2506FE3728CBE@JcK-HP8200.jck.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: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 18:40:12 -0000 > I think that, if a pair or group of companies form strong > alliances (formation of a joint subsidiary is one such alliance, > but not the only one), then it is wiser to treat them as a > single entity for Nomcom purposes even though one could argue it > discriminates somewhat against the parents. When Juniper Networks was a very young company, just getting started and ju= st getting funded, it got funding from several companies. I can't recall pr= ecisely which companies, but Wikipedia specifically mentions AT&T, Northern= Telecom, 3Com, UUnet/Worldcom, Siemens, and Ericsson.=20 I don't think that it would have been reasonable at the time to limit the c= ombination of AT&T, NT, 3Com, UUnet, Siemens, and Ericsson to a total of on= ly 2 members of nomcom.=20 Also of course it is possible for different combinations of companies to co= operate in different ways at the same time. For example, while these six co= mpanies were cooperating in funding Juniper, it is entirely likely that one= of the them would have been cooperating with a seventh company on some oth= er effort. IBM and Dell are mentioned in the Wikipedia entry as cooperating= with Juniper on OEM agreements. I don't think that the Siemens / Nokia coo= peration over NSN was going on at the same time, but if it were and if we t= ake the "lump these into the same pool" argument to its extreme, then we wo= uld end up with of AT&T, NT, 3Com, UUnet, Siemens, Ericsson, IBM, Dell, and= Nokia limited to a total of 2 members of nomcom (and some of these were pr= obably funding some work at MIT, Stanford, and other universities, so let's= lump them together also).=20 I am specifically not trying to be perfect, but trying to come up with some= thing that is good enough for now.=20 Ross From fred@cisco.com Thu Aug 9 11:41:42 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 595F621F86B4 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:41:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, 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 1Hvpkig8aIRw for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:41:41 -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 9C6E321F86B3 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:41:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1104; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1344537701; x=1345747301; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=vZPelx/y4ejsqLBPyzSzKyQf7P1fMJbrnz1VBwaUdUc=; b=OIILx8yX6k3pJn4gHQj/hmCr2swDVckiYgFZP6afHgoEBJqrvmQ7juXw iPAhdyhwCZ0wgTeyIwNORLj22pFjBgUJWdc397+m8E5sshw491FV8qJg+ 3K2M++WT+QxJyQbfL/K8ujuM35PchqAVPxqUuCb8ettC1gcn8ESgFQWyN U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAIzgI1CtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABFuWKBB4IgAQEBAwESASdECwIBCDYQMiUCBC4Hh2UGmwagbYsPhgRgA5VJjimBZoJf X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,741,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="107070999" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2012 18:41:41 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q79IffVS022375 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:41:41 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.97]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:41:40 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: "" Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers Thread-Index: AQHNc4hI3qD5n52qckaVRK0UucRPJZdNo/GAgACFeoCAALoigIACUbuAgAC2d4CAAAgAgIAAAo2AgAAMjoCAAAoUgIAAF/UAgAAFEwA= Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:41:39 +0000 Message-ID: <549A2149-1AC5-46B4-A145-57A1A3306C8A@cisco.com> References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <5024001E.10704@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <5024001E.10704@dcrocker.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.245.248] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19098.001 x-tm-as-result: No--30.038700-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <61A87FC8D0C4CB48969C395CA8CA2339@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 18:41:42 -0000 On Aug 9, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > Any ownership in common links companies into the same pool. I'm reading all of this, and wonder whether we're approaching it the wrong = way. I'm not sure that there is any single rule that can prevent bad things from= happening, and applying layers and layers of legal bandaids has pretty muc= h the same effect as applying layers and layers of bandaids to anything els= e - it eventually takes a lawyer to figure out which direction is up. May I suggest another approach? How about if we, when we seat a nomcom, permit concerned individuals to fil= e an appeal with the IAB over the membership of the nomcom. If the appeal s= ucceeds, the nomcom process is reset, and the effective terms of sitting fo= lks previously selected by a nomcom are extended by as long as it takes for= a newly-selected nomcom to complete its process. If we do that, I think we can stop armchair-lawyering a solution that may o= r may not actually address a hypothetical question, and in fact address rea= l problems should they arise.= From dhc@dcrocker.net Thu Aug 9 12:08:12 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 41CBC21F8762 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:08:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, 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 aHHsEQF1s8hE for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49F721F8747 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:08:11 -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 q79J89iQ030762 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:08:10 -0700 Message-ID: <50240A90.9060200@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:08:00 -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: "Fred Baker (fred)" References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <5024001E.10704@dcrocker.net> <549A2149-1AC5-46B4-A145-57A1A3306C8A@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <549A2149-1AC5-46B4-A145-57A1A3306C8A@cisco.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]); Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 19:08:12 -0000 On 8/9/2012 11:41 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > May I suggest another approach? I applaud any effort to step back and look for a different approach to these issues. > How about if we, when we seat a nomcom, permit concerned individuals > to file an appeal with the IAB over the membership of the nomcom. If > the appeal succeeds, the nomcom process is reset, and the effective > terms of sitting folks previously selected by a nomcom are extended > by as long as it takes for a newly-selected nomcom to complete its > process. > > If we do that, I think we can stop armchair-lawyering a solution that > may or may not actually address a hypothetical question, and in fact > address real problems should they arise. What Fred is suggesting presumes that it is comfortable to lodge an appeal about membership. Again, the reality of human behavior mitigates against this otherwise reasonable model. Note that we have never dislodged anyone from an IETF position by way of an appeal. (And yes, there has periodically been strong rumblings in the community that would have led one to expect otherwise.) We need proactive rules that are most likely to achieve the goals we set, rather than highly ineffective rules that produce results we don't. A model that places an appeal (reactive respone) as the primary means of enforcing the goals we set means that we expect the proactive rules to be ineffective. For reference, an appeal is a form of lawyering, standing or armchair. Conflict of interest is a rule-making matter. We can't avoid being lawyers about our own laws. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From john-ietf@jck.com Thu Aug 9 13:20:55 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 65F5721F86F7 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:20:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, 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 diZWhXXWUQP7 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5056D21F86E3 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:20:54 -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 1SzZ7u-000Pom-8M; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:14:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:20:36 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Ross Callon , dcrocker@bbiw.net, Barry Leiba Message-ID: <5C57C4EDE29B7E6F29F0B33D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <2C3E559091C2506FE3728CBE@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: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 20:20:55 -0000 --On Thursday, August 09, 2012 14:38 -0400 Ross Callon wrote: >> I think that, if a pair or group of companies form strong >> alliances (formation of a joint subsidiary is one such >> alliance, but not the only one), then it is wiser to treat >> them as a single entity for Nomcom purposes even though one >> could argue it discriminates somewhat against the parents. > > When Juniper Networks was a very young company, just getting > started and just getting funded, it got funding from several > companies. I can't recall precisely which companies, but > Wikipedia specifically mentions AT&T, Northern Telecom, 3Com, > UUnet/Worldcom, Siemens, and Ericsson. > > I don't think that it would have been reasonable at the time > to limit the combination of AT&T, NT, 3Com, UUnet, Siemens, > and Ericsson to a total of only 2 members of nomcom. And I agree. That is precisely why, despite the desire to do something really simple, I think we either need to give up on having any established criteria at all and go with an objection/appeal scenario such as the one Fred suggested (although I agree with Dave's objections) or that we do need to distinguish between small fractional ownership and enough investment, control, or coordinated relationships to create a potential problem in Nomcom or elsewhere. Picking again on NSN as an example, if Nokia and Siemens had less that 10% ownership each and no arrangements independent of ownership that would permit either to pick the management of the partially-owned subsidiary, I'd stop worrying about conflicts, even if Nokia, Siemens, and NSN ended up with two Nomcom members each. The 10% is fairly arbitrary -- others might pick a different threshold -- but it is a lot smaller, in terms of ability to control policy, that 1/2 or 1/3. >... > Also of course it is possible for different combinations of > companies to cooperate in different ways at the same time. For > example, while these six companies were cooperating in funding > Juniper, it is entirely likely that one of the them would have > been cooperating with a seventh company on some other effort. > IBM and Dell are mentioned in the Wikipedia entry as > cooperating with Juniper on OEM agreements. I don't think that >... When I said "strong alliances" (which I admit is still somewhat subjective), I deliberately didn't say "cooperate". I'm happy to leave the question of when "cooperation" becomes "collusion on important matters" to the lawyers and regulators. > I am specifically not trying to be perfect, but trying to come > up with something that is good enough for now. So am I. I think we are in agreement about the principles, I was just questioning the details of your suggestion that could result in a single, heavily intertwined, collection of entities ending up with a majority on the Nomcom. john From stbryant@cisco.com Thu Aug 9 15:32:42 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 D732721F861B for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:32:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, 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 RxUvWVStZcjj for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6E821F8616 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:32:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; l=3863; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1344551560; x=1345761160; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Xvh84VOhThEAtumCmMTzPSH5gPRIv8PDa8Ay/DMkVrw=; b=OLJ8rhdxMM1HaywXG6vLcl183lu5k2W6JxuVh1+mtC2JFpsjT8NiG3fX KJyWflJUSEdGY2Yeru4Ld965jLH7K+sGEZLuqMMFkWsj/+DKTJ6uqZhJW YwG3n0+VHqTqMYcOE7/OjZeQiLFPGArFrB8mmumwhTRTHdiDCZq4LudJX 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAIzgI1CQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABFuWKBB4IgAQEBBBIBAiNBEAsYCSUPAkYGDQEFAgEBHodrmwaDSBCdFYsPChKGSAOVSY4pgQRigmCBVg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,742,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="7236934" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2012 22:32:38 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q79MWbIV000333 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:32:37 GMT Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id q79MWXS4026806; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:32:34 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <50243A81.10600@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:32:33 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John C Klensin References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <2C3E559091C2506FE3728CBE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <2C3E559091C2506FE3728CBE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Barry Leiba , "" , dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com 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, 09 Aug 2012 22:32:43 -0000 On 09/08/2012 19:08, John C Klensin wrote: > > --On Thursday, August 09, 2012 12:21 -0400 Ross Callon > wrote: > >> But Nokia and Siemens are separate independent companies. They >> happen to have cooperated on one project (NSN), but otherwise >> are independent and compete with each other. >> >> Thus Nokia and Siemens should each be allowed to have two >> members on nomcom, if they happened to get picked. >> >> The issue comes up regarding what happens to the Nokia and >> Siemens quota's if someone from NSN happens to be selected for >> nomcom. >> >> There are a few constraints which are relatively >> straightforward: >> >> The number of voting members from Nokia must be less than or >> equal to 2. The number of voting members from Siemens must >> be less than or equal to 2. The number of voting members from >> NSN must be less than or equal to 2. >> >> If it is correct that NSN is wholely owned by Nokia plus >> Siemens, then we might add a constraint that the maximum >> number total from all of Nokia, plus Siemens, plus NSN must >> be less than or equal to 4. (since there are only two >> independent companies here, not three). >> >> If these are the only constraints, then this could lead to the >> result that if first two Nokia people are picked, then two NSN >> people are picked, then Siemens would not be able to get >> anyone on nomcom (since essentially their quota is used up by >> NSN). One option is to say "sorry, that is how the constraints >> work". Another possible way around this would be to add two >> more constraints: Nokia plus NSN is less than or equal to 3, >> and Siemens plus NSN is less than or equal to 3. > Ross, > > I am sympathetic to what you are trying to do here, but I think > it leads to an unacceptable result. Suppose that, through > another industry consolidation next year, a new entity emerged > called ABC, precisely 1/3 owned by Acme Corp, Beer Corp, and > Cola Corp, each of whom maintains a significant participation > presence in the IETF and intends to continue to do so. I agree > with those who think that 5% - 10% ownership participation > should not be a major issue, but my threshold for concern > definitely sets in at 1/3 and maybe even at 1/4. > > To make this more amusing, assuming that there are periodic > technical coordination meetings among relevant parts of the > parent companies and the subsidiary so that the parents and the > subsidiary avoid unintentionally competing with each other or > having conflicts about strategies. Antitrust/ competitiveness > laws might have prevented Acme, Beer, and Cola from meeting with > each other on that basis before the subsidiary was created but > some of those barriers come down if they are just coordinating > with a joint subsidiary whose creation got past the regulators. > > Now, applying your logic, Acme + Beer + Cola + ABE should be > permitted up to six Nomcom slots if the draw comes out that way, > in spite of the fact that the four organizations are > collaborating on technical strategy. They presumably would not > be coordinating on IETF leadership strategy, but the barriers > are thin and all might think they would benefit from a > concentration of "friendly" people on the IESG or IAB. Six is > a majority of the Nomcom and would make me (at least) very > nervous. > > I think that, if a pair or group of companies form strong > alliances (formation of a joint subsidiary is one such alliance, > but not the only one), then it is wiser to treat them as a > single entity for Nomcom purposes even though one could argue it > discriminates somewhat against the parents. > > john > > John, what is your advice when the set of companies are owned by or licensed by a single government? Stewart From mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com Thu Aug 9 16:27:13 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 195CE21F864A for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:27:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.525 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 vwh1FdzI1JJ7 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:27:12 -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 9736D21F8644 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lahm15 with SMTP id m15so578140lah.31 for ; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:27:10 -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=cGS1IY+ZHNlQElTxyMlQagKtDB3qZQwu3SuMqiNK1O4=; b=B6Ki7ut/mJaAlACTKHuTti4o93vQawQd5C0n66RJ/pdaHKb7Anv5QBrmY2UyTKvb2/ ewS9+0ZL31VLekK3C7QbEvw6IH85FPFcctuJSaMTycdS/tnGnAq0qH66z3gVjJf5c0a6 sbHBZRbX2gUgyZHTXzGnnwEhC3jTc16FSkpiSpWxEUeP7vb1l/zyRGvg2/GxiEge7FFN cAtLxZPbW9UqR6dCEsU1KF2TOGgsg3S/EsOxDl8gJhsvryeHSrYww7NbPKSCj4p152ah 5/SxwjQW8tpvsSinecntQYQyP6OtmCs6kloKD7Wgk5+n85/hln4E5J0UN6XZp6Ve1Pfm kqLw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.104.77 with SMTP id gc13mr913394lab.31.1344554830529; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.85.196 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:27:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <549A2149-1AC5-46B4-A145-57A1A3306C8A@cisco.com> References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <5024001E.10704@dcrocker.net> <549A2149-1AC5-46B4-A145-57A1A3306C8A@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:27:10 -0500 Message-ID: From: Mary Barnes To: "Fred Baker (fred)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04083adb0e02a404c6dd9100 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 23:27:13 -0000 --f46d04083adb0e02a404c6dd9100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In general, I really like the idea, however this Nomcom can't afford to reset the selection process. It's already starting late and the key IETF for this Nomcom is earlier than it has been at other times. Certainly, we are debating something that hasn't yet happened, so it's not unreasonable to wait and see what happens. There is a week or so appeal period after the announcement of the selected nominees. The selection process usually produces 15 names so there's a reserve to draw from should someone no longer be willing or able to serve on the Nomcom. I personally would hope that if there appears to be more than 2 for a given affiliation (no matter how one defines it), that the 3rd, etc. volunteers would make the personal decision not to serve on the Nomcom and then the chair can work his way down the queue to select additional voting members. Mary. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > Any ownership in common links companies into the same pool. > > I'm reading all of this, and wonder whether we're approaching it the wrong > way. > > I'm not sure that there is any single rule that can prevent bad things > from happening, and applying layers and layers of legal bandaids has pretty > much the same effect as applying layers and layers of bandaids to anything > else - it eventually takes a lawyer to figure out which direction is up. > > May I suggest another approach? > > How about if we, when we seat a nomcom, permit concerned individuals to > file an appeal with the IAB over the membership of the nomcom. If the > appeal succeeds, the nomcom process is reset, and the effective terms of > sitting folks previously selected by a nomcom are extended by as long as it > takes for a newly-selected nomcom to complete its process. > > If we do that, I think we can stop armchair-lawyering a solution that may > or may not actually address a hypothetical question, and in fact address > real problems should they arise. > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > --f46d04083adb0e02a404c6dd9100 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In general, I really like the idea, however this Nomcom can't afford to= reset the selection process. It's already starting late and the key IE= TF for this Nomcom is earlier than it has been at other times. =A0

Certainly, we are debating something that hasn't yet happene= d, so it's not unreasonable to wait and see what happens. =A0There is a= week or so appeal period after the announcement of the selected nominees. = =A0The selection process usually produces 15 names so there's a reserve= to draw from should someone no longer be willing or able to serve on the N= omcom. =A0I personally would hope that if there appears to be more than 2 f= or a given affiliation (no matter how one defines it), that the 3rd, etc. v= olunteers would make the personal decision not to serve on the Nomcom and t= hen the chair can work his way down the queue to select additional voting m= embers. =A0

Mary.

On Thu, Aug 9, = 2012 at 1:41 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

On Aug 9, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> =A0 =A0 Any ownership in common links companies into the same pool.
I'm reading all of this, and wonder whether we're approaching= it the wrong way.

I'm not sure that there is any single rule that can prevent bad things = from happening, and applying layers and layers of legal bandaids has pretty= much the same effect as applying layers and layers of bandaids to anything= else - it eventually takes a lawyer to figure out which direction is up.
May I suggest another approach?

How about if we, when we seat a nomcom, permit concerned individuals to fil= e an appeal with the IAB over the membership of the nomcom. If the appeal s= ucceeds, the nomcom process is reset, and the effective terms of sitting fo= lks previously selected by a nomcom are extended by as long as it takes for= a newly-selected nomcom to complete its process.

If we do that, I think we can stop armchair-lawyering a solution that may o= r may not actually address a hypothetical question, and in fact address rea= l problems should they arise.
___________________________________= ____________
ietf-nomcom mailing list
ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

--f46d04083adb0e02a404c6dd9100-- From fred@cisco.com Thu Aug 9 16:33:44 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 7D1DD21F8694 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.492 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, 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 d2+a0kjvnuYf for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:33:44 -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 E861421F8690 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:33:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2937; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1344555224; x=1345764824; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=cUj5BkutFXwitA1i7EDiRGKf2r5Zty4nUl+3x2l7Hao=; b=IGJJDrIaW0otud9abzrxR0S2BN+CUG+nRwS22odEZfrueezIT5h2uwkf t2S6pBeDRM3vN9hi9OitaA8OCyGZTl3NLU7IcgebYqpvYbtB8mHYZAO1b zqWPOcwoFAZxr5h52l9ofOzv37w1sE14npnC+lyLGsePeoxOwQGwJSnkd A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAIzgI1CtJXG//2dsb2JhbABFuWKBB4IhAQEEEgFbCxACAQgEQjIlAgQOGQ6Ha5sGoG2LDwqFemADiBmNMI4pgWaCXw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,743,1336348800"; d="scan'208,217";a="107150394" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2012 23:33:42 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q79NXgOL007167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:33:42 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.97]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:33:41 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Mary Barnes Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers Thread-Index: AQHNc4hI3qD5n52qckaVRK0UucRPJZdNo/GAgACFeoCAALoigIACUbuAgAC2d4CAAAgAgIAAAo2AgAAMjoCAAAoUgIAAF/UAgAAFEwCAAE/KAIAAAc4A Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:33:41 +0000 Message-ID: <74CE8D20-4EB9-4A8C-B267-7289358633A6@cisco.com> References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <5024001E.10704@dcrocker.net> <549A2149-1AC5-46B4-A145-57A1A3306C8A@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.32.244.220] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19098.001 x-tm-as-result: No--21.315000-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_74CE8D204EB94A8CB2677289358633A6ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 09 Aug 2012 23:33:44 -0000 --_000_74CE8D204EB94A8CB2677289358633A6ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Aug 9, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: There is a week or so appeal period after the announcement of the selected = nominees. The selection process usually produces 15 names so there's a res= erve to draw from should someone no longer be willing or able to serve on t= he Nomcom. I personally would hope that if there appears to be more than 2= for a given affiliation (no matter how one defines it), that the 3rd, etc.= volunteers would make the personal decision not to serve on the Nomcom and= then the chair can work his way down the queue to select additional voting= members. Ah, there you go being reasonable, rational, logical, and mature. If mailin= g list discussions are to be believed, that is a rare and valuable quality = in this community... --_000_74CE8D204EB94A8CB2677289358633A6ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Aug 9, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:

There is a week or so appeal period after the announcement of the sele= cted nominees.  The selection process usually produces 15 names so the= re's a reserve to draw from should someone no longer be willing or able to = serve on the Nomcom.  I personally would hope that if there appears to be more than 2 for a given affiliation (no m= atter how one defines it), that the 3rd, etc. volunteers would make the per= sonal decision not to serve on the Nomcom and then the chair can work his w= ay down the queue to select additional voting members.  

Ah, there you go being reasonable, rational, logical, and mature. If m= ailing list discussions are to be believed, that is a rare and valuable qua= lity in this community...
--_000_74CE8D204EB94A8CB2677289358633A6ciscocom_-- From rcallon@juniper.net Thu Aug 9 17:15:39 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 6D94B11E808A for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:15:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 JsTwqB-Gnlp2 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com (exprod7og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B072611E8099 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUCRSp8cf7vVxjj/gzUlS29fOSymWV9EG@postini.com; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:15:37 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:15:33 -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; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:15:32 -0400 From: Ross Callon To: Mary Barnes , "Fred Baker (fred)" Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:15:31 -0400 Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers Thread-Index: Ac12hoeuNhHbnURHSjeh5Gfpqi0NegABmFRg Message-ID: References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <5024001E.10704@dcrocker.net> <549A2149-1AC5-46B4-A145-57A1A3306C8A@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C713F9E6A3EMBX01WFjnprn_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 10 Aug 2012 00:15:39 -0000 --_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C713F9E6A3EMBX01WFjnprn_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that Mary's suggestion is the right thing to do for the current nom= com. Thanks, Ross From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org] On= Behalf Of Mary Barnes Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 7:27 PM To: Fred Baker (fred) Cc: Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers In general, I really like the idea, however this Nomcom can't afford to res= et the selection process. It's already starting late and the key IETF for t= his Nomcom is earlier than it has been at other times. Certainly, we are debating something that hasn't yet happened, so it's not = unreasonable to wait and see what happens. There is a week or so appeal pe= riod after the announcement of the selected nominees. The selection proces= s usually produces 15 names so there's a reserve to draw from should someon= e no longer be willing or able to serve on the Nomcom. I personally would = hope that if there appears to be more than 2 for a given affiliation (no ma= tter how one defines it), that the 3rd, etc. volunteers would make the pers= onal decision not to serve on the Nomcom and then the chair can work his wa= y down the queue to select additional voting members. Mary. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Fred Baker (fred) > wrote: On Aug 9, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > Any ownership in common links companies into the same pool. I'm reading all of this, and wonder whether we're approaching it the wrong = way. I'm not sure that there is any single rule that can prevent bad things from= happening, and applying layers and layers of legal bandaids has pretty muc= h the same effect as applying layers and layers of bandaids to anything els= e - it eventually takes a lawyer to figure out which direction is up. May I suggest another approach? How about if we, when we seat a nomcom, permit concerned individuals to fil= e an appeal with the IAB over the membership of the nomcom. If the appeal s= ucceeds, the nomcom process is reset, and the effective terms of sitting fo= lks previously selected by a nomcom are extended by as long as it takes for= a newly-selected nomcom to complete its process. If we do that, I think we can stop armchair-lawyering a solution that may o= r may not actually address a hypothetical question, and in fact address rea= l problems should they arise. _______________________________________________ ietf-nomcom mailing list ietf-nomcom@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom --_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C713F9E6A3EMBX01WFjnprn_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think t= hat Mary’s suggestion is the right thing to do for the current nomcom= .

 

Thanks, Ross

 

Fr= om: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org] <= b>On Behalf Of Mary Barnes
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 7:= 27 PM
To: Fred Baker (fred)
Cc: <ietf-nomcom@ietf.or= g>
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Vol= unteers

 

In general, I really like the idea, however this Nom= com can't afford to reset the selection process. It's already starting late= and the key IETF for this Nomcom is earlier than it has been at other time= s.  

 

Certainly, we are debating something that hasn'= t yet happened, so it's not unreasonable to wait and see what happens. &nbs= p;There is a week or so appeal period after the announcement of the selecte= d nominees.  The selection process usually produces 15 names so there'= s a reserve to draw from should someone no longer be willing or able to ser= ve on the Nomcom.  I personally would hope that if there appears to be= more than 2 for a given affiliation (no matter how one defines it), that t= he 3rd, etc. volunteers would make the personal decision not to serve on th= e Nomcom and then the chair can work his way down the queue to select addit= ional voting members.  

=  

Mary.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 = at 1:41 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:


On Aug 9, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Dave= Crocker wrote:

>     Any ownership in common links com= panies into the same pool.

I'm rea= ding all of this, and wonder whether we're approaching it the wrong way.
I'm not sure that there is any single rule that can prevent bad things= from happening, and applying layers and layers of legal bandaids has prett= y much the same effect as applying layers and layers of bandaids to anythin= g else - it eventually takes a lawyer to figure out which direction is up.<= br>
May I suggest another approach?

How about if we, when we seat= a nomcom, permit concerned individuals to file an appeal with the IAB over= the membership of the nomcom. If the appeal succeeds, the nomcom process i= s reset, and the effective terms of sitting folks previously selected by a = nomcom are extended by as long as it takes for a newly-selected nomcom to c= omplete its process.

If we do that, I think we can stop armchair-law= yering a solution that may or may not actually address a hypothetical quest= ion, and in fact address real problems should they arise.

_______________________________________________=
ietf-nomcom mailing list
iet= f-nomcom@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-no= mcom

 

= --_000_DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C713F9E6A3EMBX01WFjnprn_-- From henk.uijterwaal@gmail.com Thu Aug 9 23:34:33 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 AA32411E80FF for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:34:33 -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 DJ7VVc7vmz5J for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:34:33 -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 BC79621F861E for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaai11 with SMTP id i11so320484eaa.31 for ; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:34:32 -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=9bvKjnnaxwt4y5azKKfmNBTVrzHcsZ/Yzuc8xk3SXXs=; b=O/DKRjnC/GWRj5Gm4rF2+/ce4HXiVAL2cVJeeknrRW9wtGG6KHRDKP1j+E5Sa087hg RzgcIBRx8f0GC1kRcXEBZxk1hwsK+MGPyFMjwgUWVK1HILODbfBLesrFGJXcwTNceVrk B2kG4AgxfUdKqL9xFUgQmuDHlprWlY99qaW3WwH49p/bYvAfcIb3FSce7e72EC1NmVM/ JFTFezI/NdlWWF45hnJUdgOIKFaeF/lmTSEo7LtCM3evUJWs7tsxRozPe8C/AJx1feif h6uT4swSuaR++DY+CG1V6pdw0NqWAXyAhMPGJornaLw0vrrpHx7Ry1t9O0hKG3iKZcGG TVQg== Received: by 10.14.0.198 with SMTP id 46mr1904581eeb.30.1344580471785; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local ([2001:980:1203:1:e6ce:8fff:fe11:e7a8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h42sm8899293eem.5.2012.08.09.23.34.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5024AB74.1060705@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:34:28 +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: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <5024001E.10704@dcrocker.net> <549A2149-1AC5-46B4-A145-57A1A3306C8A@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <549A2149-1AC5-46B4-A145-57A1A3306C8A@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:34:33 -0000 On 09/08/2012 20:41, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > May I suggest another approach? > > How about if we, when we seat a nomcom, permit concerned individuals to file > an appeal with the IAB over the membership of the nomcom. If the appeal > succeeds, the nomcom process is reset, and the effective terms of sitting > folks previously selected by a nomcom are extended by as long as it takes for > a newly-selected nomcom to complete its process. I'd suggest to do this _before_ the actual selection, that is, once the list of nomcom volunteers is known, make a list of affiliations and group those which are the same company. Publish those groups with some period for appeal. When the selection algorithm is run, not more than 2 people from a group can be selected. 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 henk.uijterwaal@gmail.com Thu Aug 9 23:44:03 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 3989A11E80FF for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:44:03 -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 TcbXL24rI6TL for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:44:02 -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 4C8E521F8621 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaai11 with SMTP id i11so322030eaa.31 for ; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:44:01 -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=Kus1alk1zFyHG5WmIfu/cmVgGU6jS/+BTpmJ59Mo8AI=; b=gDlyTlTut9ruNf4BupTdbh+UCPHwfIzNTyN3TGuSWzHgmzK5r9yku6L8qqwIydL3DA QVGAEm+KkgaGLHvWqKj3XHIYFApAvGBU4dBQK5ZwmPIJDbz9V+StLsmbJ4i0xRRZ2avd sxM+p1d3zyTorE3SNOFt63ciUDAmEZ9x0i3+1VFxULXIKD0mEbCtM/OWb1p1D8hNy3oI M/0ssSiIBzcroZw7ii2+Z+M3bJtpuCRWWLKP4XpXCmqTfUwMdW6EbrFzkCnJP/BDz36a QWK09MaOfBHx6P/G8nG9reacm0R1lA+QhmFgg0SsAt89TByLRloNg20rNUq4lfg/BMjA 77SA== Received: by 10.14.2.199 with SMTP id 47mr2010411eef.19.1344581041435; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local ([2001:980:1203:1:e6ce:8fff:fe11:e7a8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g46sm8873199eep.15.2012.08.09.23.43.58 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5024ADAA.2060500@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:43:54 +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: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <502402BB.7060100@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <502402BB.7060100@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] nomcom volunteers - contractor funding 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: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:44:03 -0000 On 09/08/2012 20:34, Dave Crocker wrote: > Keep the rule utterly trivial: > > If a person has /any/ financial arrangement with a company (any money or > stock) then they must count in that company's limitation pool. I'm not sure if I'd consider volunteering for the nomcom if that meant that I have to hand over a copy of my investment portefolio records. Also, most people who invest in stocks, will spread their money over a large number of companies to spread the risk. Is having a few % of your money invested in company X really going to affect any decisions you'd be making on the nomcom? 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 sm@resistor.net Fri Aug 10 00:35:28 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 84FC321F8604 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:35:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, 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 bsBcfqjYOEib for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:35:16 -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 DC1ED21F8602 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.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 q7A7Z6LX027954; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:35:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1344584115; bh=MrUCwE50Y+cTQUUbUajRXDhah647AH4QnsTz/8Or32A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=gvpGFoksiMB+3JSCc3NItNveCLF0sPSqwXEaWmIDqbRpsZp1+jkm6wxPbbaN9rZLl oJzCPLlehoQNOJbYwaaDjEhJ5eC1xQK+FK1UJecB0BpT5Ln/GDGZ3vt1IWn0H119Kx jEn8sNRz0JGuExHZquH/7/YzfRrGTSBQcK2BOR3A= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1344584115; i=@resistor.net; bh=MrUCwE50Y+cTQUUbUajRXDhah647AH4QnsTz/8Or32A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=qQCeLXuL8EHN4rEJnN2Of4NbgrNSM6lf/AR+hmaOhsK5ZjKjWm6P7pxmr6Vg7aDmv MDa5Zcp7gqaw/Qv0JdIX+2NBjuEVrWOibxZV4aFh1+fWeK1aTtkBd20Z0skFsrWBOa 0YkxtjSfW3M7CBmxBER0U8MkWMUIufbNOeKmjcYY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120809234514.0a34aed0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:31:30 -0700 To: henk@uijterwaal.nl, ietf-nomcom@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <5024AB74.1060705@gmail.com> References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <5024001E.10704@dcrocker.net> <549A2149-1AC5-46B4-A145-57A1A3306C8A@cisco.com> <5024AB74.1060705@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 10 Aug 2012 07:35:28 -0000 At 23:34 09-08-2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >I'd suggest to do this _before_ the actual selection, that is, once the >list of nomcom volunteers is known, make a list of affiliations and group >those which are the same company. Publish those groups with some period >for appeal. When the selection algorithm is run, not more than 2 people >from a group can be selected. This would mean invoking the dispute resolution process where the Internet Society President appoints an arbiter to investigate and resolve the issue. The arbiter will likely invoke the following: "The IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the participants to make the process work". Mary Barnes made a suggestion ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-nomcom/current/msg00439.html ): "The selection process usually produces 15 names so there's a reserve to draw from should someone no longer be willing or able to serve on the Nomcom. I personally would hope that if there appears to be more than 2 for a given affiliation (no matter how one defines it), that the 3rd, etc. volunteers would make the personal decision not to serve on the Nomcom and then the chair can work his way down the queue to select additional voting members." There is not always a right way to resolve an issue. The above provides a path which can be part of the oral tradition that keeps a process consistent without the rigidity of formal rules. Regards, -sm From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Fri Aug 10 06:31:49 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 0236321F84E4 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:31:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.029 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.052, 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 mXQgl-0b0Tbe for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:31:48 -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 0B0FE21F84DA for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgg6 with SMTP id gg6so953132lbb.31 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:31:46 -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=s7wS+iENkKMMTXr+0fa8rP6qSiI4zshY437rJS2XFu8=; b=xqe1zq4UHgrHoPXnDJ10OHTn/+UhIZkVYTctcdBKalBm22J09JIAr55hB3b+H6WsZg 9FO3/1qTTKTgTv0SwHlGzEN9Gu7h/jIuEf1iDPYqV4Qd3aCSne6Pjwm0nAt+v/CmQSag 4JYUWkbz0AOu/XrzLapmoXsdcM6NacJOtt4gGmUBP4MNJYsCOAgELfiuk+o+tS41gIVZ UvV9ZBbPZTsII7/D8EG1FqyY/wdv/aQYK/k2ail8JEMyns5eKJydU1CSazucyR5V0QhC zl7cS1CyNytOviB3OrfHufXhXjcu2B16flZpH0OPQQPXq9/4UqZ3FSIoDZsUKsfuzmok VuHg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.41.130 with SMTP id f2mr2467524lbl.5.1344605506726; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.113.196 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:31:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <502402BB.7060100@dcrocker.net> References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <502402BB.7060100@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:31:46 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: G2pmwc_4vNEWbRjU4BsN12rvmBY Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: dcrocker@bbiw.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] nomcom volunteers - contractor funding 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, 10 Aug 2012 13:31:49 -0000 > Keep the rule utterly trivial: > > If a person has /any/ financial arrangement with a company (any money > or stock) then they must count in that company's limitation pool. > > The nature of limitation rules is such that any goal of their providing real > committee independence frankly requires that the rules are unfair to many > individuals. Oh, my. This has now gotten beyond being laughable. My proposal for a 3777 update[1] has gotten feedback that we want to *minimize* who we eliminate, in order to allow our most experienced people on the NomCom... such that there's been pushback to my suggestion to exclude the IAB Executive Director and the IRTF Chair. And yet we have what appear to be serious suggestions that we group Nokia and Siemens as one affiliation for the purpose of computing NomCom affiliation limits. And now this? Oy. I worked for IBM for 32 years, and left in 2009. Of course I hold IBM stock. I should count as an IBM affiliate for that? I'm due a pension from IBM, as well. Should I count as an IBM affiliate for that? For that matter, 32 years is a long time, and I only left three years ago. Should I count as an IBM affiliate for that? In fact, one might think that after leaving I might be angry and might *dis*favour them: Should I count as an IBM affiliate for that? This is all going off the deep end. It's clear that "Huawei" and "Huawei Technologies" and "Huawei USA" and "Futurewei" are all the same; that's the easiest one. It's clear that "IBM" and "Lotus" and "Tivoli" are the same, and that "Microsoft" and "Hotmail" and "Skype" are the same, and that "eBay" and "PayPal" are the same, and so on. That's the next stage, and it's also not too hard. But it's clear to me that Nokia and Siemens are not the same, despite their owning a company together. It's quite common in our business for companies to have various joint ventures, of varying scope and longevity. We can look at who licenses patents to whom, who subcontracts for whom, who make joint press repeases about cooperative agreements and so on. In general, I cannot imagine calling such pairs (or triplets, or...) of companies one unit for the purpose of affiliation counting. The joint ventures themselves (NSN, in the examples we've been using) are the tricky bits, and my inclination for them is to consider them separate from the parent companies, and to use Mary's suggestion for exceptional circumstances (if, for example, Nokia, Siemens, and NSN all wind up with two voting NomCom members selected). As with most things in the IETF, we have to start by assuming that people will behave appropriately. We have lots of evidence that some people don't, but we also have lots that most of us do most of the time. It's how we survive. Barry [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility/ From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Fri Aug 10 06:54:00 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 2C3B121F8623 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:54:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.029 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.052, 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 oFlXs3TNRotX for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:53:59 -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 59BC121F861E for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgg6 with SMTP id gg6so965352lbb.31 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:53:58 -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=6AQ+bUI6otfQbThibgmbwEpdqVq8jaOnrRaN09tH5sE=; b=KGuwNi+196/YGT4JyRpsgHDUI9cez1EbhxuWoTv31tmuw7mIPrbOQBp3djBBAU/7F9 6ny55mYhN08bISomYXRUW26yjmrSV6ZbBDfAAt/y0QouClpboCLaXEYsjAtzbUjVUV2h KW5aCS9uJb9r2zCHkGoA5XUgRLZoqaS2M0E2K/CsQZAv4WFcZdyQZHGQja59kARvuhx0 +LaPOz+RtYJ7uRr+PbrYegw6VasK80yrJWI7vlRQxL7cpKc77ucstwqeOrBH6ihN6tAe 2PC4Uu5vCkXfSSjeJ17BQ+YOv9HH7hZ9bI9hYy5PIZHFHNadsI9EDErL6CQxlHsEFNKl R9cw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.114.3 with SMTP id jc3mr3106469lab.11.1344606838313; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.113.196 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:53:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120809234514.0a34aed0@resistor.net> References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <5024001E.10704@dcrocker.net> <549A2149-1AC5-46B4-A145-57A1A3306C8A@cisco.com> <5024AB74.1060705@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120809234514.0a34aed0@resistor.net> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:53:58 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: XnXvEHcIjjC3BdkJJyIxrcZU2qs Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 10 Aug 2012 13:54:00 -0000 Addressing the "too many volunteers from some big companies" issue that started this mess. Do you all recall what Matt's been sending, what the ADs have been pushing, what the chairs have been forwarding to their working groups?: Solicitations for NomCom participation, which say how important it is to the IETF that everyone participate in the process. Please, we've been saying, please volunteer for the NomCom. Do you see what we're doing now?: We're saying that it frightens us when we see a lot of people taking that to heart and volunteering. No one said, nor meant to say, "It's important to support the NomCom process, so please volunteer, but only if you don't work for a big company." Cisco has something above 10% of the overall IETF participation, and a huge number of long-time highly experienced IETF participants. It shouldn't be surprising that a lot of them have volunteered. My Huawei colleagues can be counted on to respond when you say "It's important to volunteer!", and they will volunteer in large numbers, in the honest spirit of wanting to be a part and responding to the call. The way to deal with the balance, the diversity that we're looking for isn't to turn around and try to limit things more, but to push for more IETF participation and more NomCom volunteerism from the smaller companies, the universities, or whoever else you would like to see represented more on the NomCom. And, of course, part of that involves looking for what changes we can make in the IETF that will make it more open to participation from the smaller guys, as it used to be -- we know that it's become increasingly harder for small companies to be able to afford to have their people in IETF leadership positions, and on the NomCom, because of the time commitments and various costs involved. I think we need to stop spending so much time worrying about who *is* volunteering, and look at changing who *isn't*. Barry From john-ietf@jck.com Fri Aug 10 07:01:25 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 394EC21F85E6 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:01:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.586 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, 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 MiE5DUYwWPwc for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4270F21F84F2 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:01:24 -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 1Szpg9-0002DE-Ot; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:55:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:01:05 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: stbryant@cisco.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <50243A81.10600@cisco.com> References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <2C3E559091C2506FE3728CBE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <50243A81.10600@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: Barry Leiba , "" , dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Final List of NomCom 2012-13 Volunteers 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, 10 Aug 2012 14:01:25 -0000 --On Thursday, August 09, 2012 23:32 +0100 Stewart Bryant wrote: >... > John, what is your advice when the set of companies are owned > by or licensed by a single government? Stewart, What I've been objecting to here is the notion that some simple and draconian rule will serve our needs. I continue to believe that whatever we do about disqualifying people, it should be balanced against the desirability of having people on the Nomcom who actually have deep knowledge about how the IETF works and how the leadership bodies function. That, and other things, lead me to agree with Henk that a requirement to disclose financial portfolios or even the names of entities for whom one has done a day or two of consulting over the prior year would hurt us more (by causing perfectly reasonable people from the Nomcom pool) than it would bring benefit. I also mostly agree with Barry's recent note and at least some of Mary's remarks: there are troubling edge cases. We might be able to make well-defined rules for some of them but we are ultimately going to need to establish guidelines, rely on individual good faith, and hope that qualified people don't overcompensate too much in the interest of avoiding doubt. As an example, I personally believe that "IETF attendance and participation supported by..." usually ought to be considered as equivalent to "employed by" for Nomcom selection purposes. People who respect that principle won't volunteer for the Nomcom or will quietly withdraw if too many people from that company are selected. People who don't will lie (or omit information) and no stronger rule will protect us. I say "usually" because, for example, I've occasionally taken travel money from companies with no particular interest in the outcomes of specific IETF work other than it converge, reach consensus, and succeed. I'd draw the line if they were actually paying for my time, but I don't see any particular influence arising from one meeting's worth of travel support. To answer your question, I think there is a huge distance between "owned by" and "licensed by". The latter, in one way or another (and with niceties for some federal systems) applies to almost every company in the world except that the governments are different. As far as ownership is concerned, the real issues are influence and control. No matter how much we would like to establish a simple rule based on "follow the money" or "any financial involvement", many of the most obvious governmental ownership relationships do not involve control or influence at a level that might affect the IETF. Others do, and I just don't see how one can write a firm and simple rule. But that was my starting point. john From agmalis@gmail.com Fri Aug 10 10:38:58 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 D37A021F8666 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:38:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.328 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.271, 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 P37G7Cyhc5sj for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577F121F865F for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnh4 with SMTP id h4so2006304ggn.31 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:38:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=zHpIeRpdsULEB1yIAFzRaWwe+wuv5xGBjoRGJw+7RJA=; b=sIEqPy3iqbINmzUdZny30wScpb/ZWat5D/5ICAy/jdJg+lpZJYKFv7ZQsEIhleIndZ lbrgPWrsGberO7/+kp9lpE0zU9sSMEylyEz7+S1bjpyqspOgN44Gn9uWbWehMBRV42eQ GEO0f2LV1GoFx8ckRLsvBhb1Zj78q0Y9iiSOx1RVFD8xiklI91LUb97ABp8cDUwbQ/Tt cbFMYD1xJHKqFfxnFhqSlIpqznSH69mjRxdYrYwkQVTWWPR3RaWe2+kureJ8ldH4pRso pUKoKn9ks96TknJbBSZKyxK5mSfJZX6Geyr4eh8T8FncUgP4gGQZbnsd9yg1lYFSMNVF bPxw== Received: by 10.50.15.133 with SMTP id x5mr2551743igc.26.1344620337696; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:38:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.124.70 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:38:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <502402BB.7060100@dcrocker.net> References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <502402BB.7060100@dcrocker.net> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:38:37 -0400 Message-ID: To: dcrocker@bbiw.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] nomcom volunteers - contractor funding 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, 10 Aug 2012 17:38:58 -0000 Dave, Anyone who owns a telecom-oriented mutual fund (not that I'm saying that's a smart idea) probably indirectly owns stock in a good proportion of the companies that participate in the IETF. Would that exclude them? Current salary or consulting income is one thing, but let's leave stock out of this .... unless they're the majority stockholder. :-) Cheers, Andy On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > Keep the rule utterly trivial: > > If a person has /any/ financial arrangement with a company (any money > or stock) then they must count in that company's limitation pool. > > The nature of limitation rules is such that any goal of their providing real > committee independence frankly requires that the rules are unfair to many > individuals. > > d/ From dhc@dcrocker.net Sat Aug 11 09:11:25 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 1919A21F85F9 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:11:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.640, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, 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 GWIOeQBjjFQC for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCA921F859B for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:11:24 -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 q7BGBNGJ014464 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:11:23 -0700 Message-ID: <5026841E.2000209@dcrocker.net> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:11:10 -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 CC: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <502402BB.7060100@dcrocker.net> 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]); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] nomcom volunteers - contractor funding 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: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:11:25 -0000 Although we charge Nomcom members with being independent-minded, our rules acknowledge some practical limitations to this, by virtue of restricting the number members from the same "company". Conflict of interest is not about intent but about possibilities. It is about associations that can plausibly have an undue influence on a person's decision-making. Humans are influenced by forces that are complicated. The only people who are certain of what exactly determines how a person decides things are people who have not studied human decision-making. But there are useful guidelines and we ought to pay attention to them. One of those guidelines is that influences can be quite subtle and do not require a financial sledgehammer, like large payments. On 8/9/2012 11:43 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > I'm not sure if I'd consider volunteering for the nomcom if that > meant that I have to hand over a copy of my investment portefolio > records. This is a classic reductio ad absurdum reading of what was said. It goes far beyond the suggestion. The issue is current affiliations that relate to the IETF. Why is it onerous for a consultant to declare the list of IETF-related companies in which they have an interest (by current payments or stock directly held)? If someone holds direct stock in a company, it would be rather strange if they did not want the company to succeed. That's an "interest" in the company. On 8/10/2012 6:31 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > My proposal for > a 3777 update[1] has gotten feedback that we want to *minimize* who we > eliminate, in order to allow our most experienced people on the > NomCom... For some reason, our community of computer geeks are reliably poor at considering sampling methodology. Increasing the pool increases both experienced and inexperienced folk. Absent compelling empirical analysis, just making the pool larger won't get a more experienced Nomcom. (I'll even bet it works to provide /less/ experienced folk, given possible hiring patterns by larger companies...) > I worked for IBM for 32 years, and left in 2009. Of course I hold IBM > stock. I should count as an IBM affiliate for that? And herein lies the single biggest problem with these discussions: Personalization. I'm independent. I'm fair. I'm knowledgeable, I'm... So we don't have to worry about... We need to stop evaluating based on personal views of our own likely behavior -- which research tends to show is incorrectly predicted by the person -- and start looking at common, professional assessments of conflict of interest. Nomcom is important. And its internal work is not subject to public review. So we need to make its composition as balanced and diverse as we can. If you are saying that holding stock in a company does not influence how a person makes decisions about that company, then you are making an assertion that goes against long-standing research. If you are saying that we should not care about such influences, then let's get rid of the limitation rule. On 8/10/2012 10:38 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Anyone who owns a telecom-oriented mutual fund (not that I'm saying > that's a smart idea) probably indirectly owns stock in a good > proportion of the companies that participate in the IETF. Would that > exclude them? > > Current salary or consulting income is one thing, but let's leave > stock out of this .... unless they're the majority stockholder. :-) Stock is often used as (sole) compensation. We can't leave it out entirely. That said, things like mutual funds owned by the individual and minority stakes by one company in another (as Ross cited) do suggest some boundaries to what should count. I'll suggest that sector and index stocks should not count, whereas direct shares in a company should. While we might not be able to formulate an utterly trivial rule, the only viable path is one that is clear and reasonably simple. Anything that permits subjective assessment or reactive effort like an appeal, will be useless. We agree that an "employee" of a company counts in its pool. There seems to be some effort to provide nuance about "consultants" for the company, such as whether the company is funding IETF participation. I suggest that nuance is our enemy here. If I am doing /any/ consulting, advising or other compensated work for a company that has an interest in IETF work, I should be required to declare the affiliation and I should count in its IETF pool.[1] The type of compensation should not matter. d/ [1] The one exception I can think of, that does sometimes occur, is a special project that has nothing to do with IETF work /and/ that is not allowed to be cited publicly. A particularly common example is some types of work an expert witness. If the work is in IETF space, then participation in Nomcom, during the period of engagement, simply is not viable. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Sat Aug 11 10:03:10 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 95DD021F8578 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:03:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.022 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.045, 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 x25Hzzie3xJV for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:03:09 -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 48C3321F856D for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lahm15 with SMTP id m15so1431477lah.31 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:03:08 -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=Lx8g9MEp2YQWJIQV28Og5xvLL6l8awFJsTaxfEJP/Vs=; b=BEFfvLSsU1U7IWzt5cCTRr68VQWKBkozcWLFDgcdW/vD/jzRVX/1d6oQxk2egSr5lo svNPDZDgqc2rcoJF15/lFNUxi9TnIfYPPbMHapboK6VI9nBz1Ko3fzW9PwhYNBonRWWS 6yh6eOZh6Q/7JFUy8VwyaR8ylLLzlUuZsnlBELExPUQaTon/2KAbFwXl+u0Vh6Eg9h93 hM3a13mRKzrKUXK1IHYk3ef50PwEOK4bYpLXohEy7cuSDbXInL4TzjBiTlof95kkGem0 cW0pZ8rvgZz+oBHxhYBLlR81MU8Qn9zxO//0CZmRXk4FRuxU4PodCsAKiD/ZCUTTK2Fb 1U2w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.17.161 with SMTP id p1mr3991393lbd.64.1344704588192; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.113.196 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:03:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5026841E.2000209@dcrocker.net> References: <20120806040148.27923.65936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120806133539.08740f38@resistor.net> <50214511.5060609@dcrocker.net> <5023D02F.3020001@dcrocker.net> <5023D909.8060100@dcrocker.net> <04ad01cd7650$17916c00$46b44400$@olddog.co.uk> <502402BB.7060100@dcrocker.net> <5026841E.2000209@dcrocker.net> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:03:08 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: qiZ_xc_oIIjw_z4_18GER0pKYGY Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: dcrocker@bbiw.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] nomcom volunteers - contractor funding 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: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:03:10 -0000 >> I'm not sure if I'd consider volunteering for the nomcom if that >> meant that I have to hand over a copy of my investment portefolio >> records. > > This is a classic reductio ad absurdum reading of what was said. It goes > far beyond the suggestion. I don't see how it does, actually. I suppose there was no suggestion of "handing over records", but the suggestion *was* this: "If a person has /any/ financial arrangement with a company (any money or stock) then they must count in that company's limitation pool." I apologise for my earlier disrespectful characterization of where this discussion has spiralled to. And yet such a suggestion seems not only unfair, but also entirely infeasible. It *does* seem to me that in order to meet the requirements that Dave laid out in that quotation above, I would have to go through all my investment statements, pick out every company that has any participation in the IETF, and declare all those as "affiliations" even if I have only a fraction of a share in each. > If someone holds direct stock in a company, it would be rather strange if > they did not want the company to succeed. That's an "interest" in the > company. But one has to put in in perspective. Does a few shares give me enough of an "interest" to matter? Do other forms of "interest" matter more? There are also companies I want to see succeed that I don't have a *financial* interest in. Perhaps I have friends there, perhaps I think they make good products, or perhaps I like their carbon-footprint policy. Actually, I suspect that I might be more highly motivated to support a company where friends of mine work than one in which I own a trinket of a dabble of a stock interest. But none of that's really the point: we can't pinpoint every factor that might cause a NomCom member to be biased, and every company that she might be biased for or against. But the point is that that was never the intent of limiting aggregate affiliation -- it's meant to address these conflicts at a coarse level, not at a fine one. And I think that's as it should be: trying to pick poppy seeds out of the soil will turn NomCom volunteering into a bureaucratic nightmare. We should stick with looking at the bright-red poppy flowers that we can see. >> I worked for IBM for 32 years, and left in 2009. Of course I hold IBM >> stock. I should count as an IBM affiliate for that? > > And herein lies the single biggest problem with these discussions: > Personalization. I'm independent. I'm fair. I'm knowledgeable, I'm... So > we don't have to worry about... What words that I said above lead you to put those words in my mouth? I might believe that I *am* independent, fair, and knowledgable, but I didn't appeal to that above. I said nothing of the sort. Most of us have worked for a string of companies over the years. Most of us would find it very odd to have to list all of those as "affiliations", most of our prior employers would vehemently and rightly object to be saddled with us that way, and I believe the NomCom would be much the worse for it. > If you are saying that holding stock in a company does not influence how a > person makes decisions about that company, then you are making an assertion > that goes against long-standing research. If you are saying that we should > not care about such influences, then let's get rid of the limitation rule. Hm. Where's the straw man now? The choice is not between eliminating every last trace of possible influence and making no attempt whatsoever to limit it. Until now, we've taken a position of balance: that we need to consider what your primary source of compensation is now. That some people choose to list more than one is a testament to what I said earlier: that people mostly are trying to do the right thing. It might be reasonable to go beyond "what your primary source of compensation is now," though I'm not convinced of that. If we do go beyond it, what I'm saying is that we need to be careful how far we go... and "holds /any/ stock" is *way* too far. > Stock is often used as (sole) compensation. We can't leave it out entirely. But then we don't have to worry about stock, as such: we look at what your primary source of compensation is. If your primary source (or, as I said above, sources, if you think you should list more than one) is that Beer Company gives you 1000 shares of stock per month, then you declare Beer Company as your affiliation. Easy. If you get $20,000 a month from Wine Company and 1000 shares a month from Beer Company, maybe you list both. But if you bought 1000 shares of Beer Company five years ago, because you think it's good to invest in beer, then, no, I don't think that's cause to list Beer Company as an affiliation. Sorry; I just don't. > We agree that an "employee" of a company counts in its pool. I knew there *had* to be something we agreed on, yes. > There seems to be some effort to provide nuance about "consultants" for the > company, such as whether the company is funding IETF participation. I > suggest that nuance is our enemy here. > > If I am doing /any/ consulting, advising or other compensated work for a > company that has an interest in IETF work, I should be required to declare > the affiliation and I should count in its IETF pool.[1] The type of > compensation should not matter. I actually can agree with that as well -- it is well back from the extreme stand about generic "financial interest" stuff. Yes, I'm willing to change our current mechanism of "primary source of compensation" to, say, "non-trivial source of compensation" (and, yes, I know, that still leaves the meaning of "non-trivial" open). And I agree that the type of compensation is irrelevant: if Beer Company provides you free beer in exchange for making sure the Open Tap Protocol gets standardized, that absolutely counts. And what you say in the "exception" footnote does also apply: there might be times when there's someone who might technically be eligible to serve, or who might not be allowed to disclose everything she should when serving... and that person should just decline to serve, using professional discretion to eliminate the problem. Barry From sm@elandsys.com Sun Aug 19 08:02:10 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 CE23E21F853B for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:02:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.603 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5jT8dUb0DSn5 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:02:09 -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 3D4DE21F853A for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.238.72]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7JF1mjV019666 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:01:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1345388523; bh=95TqHsJwo2JGXu5m30YeK0mykbjxP5JXX5YGtVUsRnk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=P59nAYtgZq97P+dXQZTc2aWOjeuqLjJbAAHEHz+78LgGalY4JbNQax+GIgJpGtas8 welWDhDzQuMkUH7gY4eu1YpTc4L4ROWZVRmfPv1GMks2izsveg/w4+D6dlghy0l+Lx zdw2jHIMGEZggsx7XgXBP888Q8hkWU/+TTeLRIqU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1345388523; i=@elandsys.com; bh=95TqHsJwo2JGXu5m30YeK0mykbjxP5JXX5YGtVUsRnk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=FtM/TtbF39bj8p9+rPvXX1Tw9+EYyTfMmolOqtkN2LmvJg6Yc2E1K0xNd/SEu7PAB Lux81wegnxyF1GDLD41x72Cwv6v2xz8+yCtwiyUb5MNAIMqoV5Q3nAIL0nowvEgXvo IG91q8M59PLP0/PYFr5yicXX6pYV/ZueFMTbYZhE= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120819072344.08dc0970@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:37:25 -0700 To: Bob Hinden From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <0FB15295-6265-417F-A7A8-59A0D7C90177@gmail.com> References: <20120816212429.3635.98463.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54218C01-B9E3-4E04-AD6E-E3E68CCBC0CF@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120817132720.0a2ebe40@elandnews.com> <0FB15295-6265-417F-A7A8-59A0D7C90177@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Diff of RFC 3777 and draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02 (was: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01.txt) 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: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0000 Hi Bob, At 13:53 17-08-2012, Bob Hinden wrote: >Yes, it would help for reviewing this draft, but it will still make >it complicated for future noncom's to understand the rules. A >single document would be easier to understand. There is an version of RFC 3777 with the updates from draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02 at http://www.elandsys.com/resources/ietf/drafts/rfc3777up-diff-02.html Regards, S. Moonesamy From barryleiba@gmail.com Thu Aug 16 14:29:45 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 9EB4B11E808A for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:29:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.014 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.014 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W-r-34eXhUJ2 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECAA21F8667 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so4773682obb.31 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:29:39 -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=oiq5Dg/WBYTjryimTqpWF5C9VQ60ZxZDk1Phd2jfyaU=; b=W2pAxXHvDCS1OfE+KVeAsK7Z/a3ppxOFbDdyJckVnZgcsP6PNrzojVK4qQhg6eB5Kx hmjvc2/5EW1A1mVtJ60MW/8uAYWz8KWXtbxu4yJghLarbNPj6c9/LRIsZd/GHkc8y4tB b4m30w8trucvZID+8wVFsWNVvZdHAxfi7BKB2Utm74E/GfEztrp92umcTgD1kLpiocrp KUt+omODuBoHdYwqS4xF9cB+tSnO8k5c2RX8j7JFUB4e3bbnsDtcGReTJuqzZyTLlq06 sqKQ3eVPoia4f4Q0LAM/w6lUu3C5aR7uYBE1MkXBN8uUg41rU1KjOx7OGlyZP2bJwZR2 GG9g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.50.68 with SMTP id a4mr2205142obo.59.1345152579604; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.154.9 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:29:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120816212429.3635.98463.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120816212429.3635.98463.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:29:39 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -V4adM6MnVP1xCHFgGmWKbNUoMg Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: IETF discussion list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:04:16 -0700 Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01.txt 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, 16 Aug 2012 21:29:45 -0000 SM and I have merged our 3777 update proposals, and we have posted the merged version. This is BCCed to the NomCom discussion list; please take discussion of this to the main IETF discussion list now. Reminder: the primary purpose of this is to add the IAOC to some of the points in RFC 3777, since 3777 pre-dates the formation of the IAOC. Some of the IAOC-related processed are described in RFC 4333, so this doesn't cover everything -- but it adds the IAOC to what we think is appropriate. It also incorporates the one Verified erratum against 3777, and clarifies that a few other people should not be eligible to volunteer for the NomCom -- in practical matters, it has little effect, because most of them would not be volunteering anyway. We aim to ask Russ to AD-sponsor this soon. Further discussion is open. Barry (and SM) > A new version of I-D, draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Barry Leiba and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Filename: draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility > Revision: 01 > Title: Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee Eligibility of IETF Leadership > Creation date: 2012-08-16 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 7 > URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01.txt > Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility > Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01 > Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01 > > Abstract: > RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG "may > not volunteer to serve on the nominating commitee". 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. From bob.hinden@gmail.com Sun Aug 19 08:58:45 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 8F91821F853D for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:58:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.663 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 85dQXXP9y68G for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B37221F853B for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so1384955eek.31 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:58:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=cBmjjRdVwpYN/1jqzo4wgdcaFq4U+chhA248J771VGY=; b=FJi4OovtiK5Ps0EW0k0T3YRvhh/yOLj9/USPVnEJhy+nnMpFE1sbmSJ0rGnGwxVZmI BVAauEMmPRjhWH9E/hEK31PnyGGfjVr//E6JxSKwW70WvFahRbDLC6lpU8Njg2mlckRb ZL4oNtfZls15/cXk2FlNtdsYbuVBDBIxAuZ0SHNgoYkiWTHy4GuVSFReaJkxq2urTvX1 jeQKkPQmeE3MhYoZy/D5KmIb/er+G627AAJ7Uw2xJ3nN3DUr8CP7csULZgqGZXzlN3Uw wl8s3STPgefBIcuD2KYeRhaZ4iEIqCFHO7E13XGQFqei9VTtbVcD0P4uD6kpDEcQnJzo EJMw== Received: by 10.14.202.131 with SMTP id d3mr5033241eeo.32.1345391923188; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:9:4080:10:816c:7820:f074:5eeb? ([2601:9:4080:10:816c:7820:f074:5eeb]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h2sm34885105eeo.3.2012.08.19.08.58.36 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1280) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Bob Hinden In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120819072344.08dc0970@elandnews.com> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:58:38 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <327B1981-71B5-4934-8D62-0FF9D3E6E83B@gmail.com> References: <20120816212429.3635.98463.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54218C01-B9E3-4E04-AD6E-E3E68CCBC0CF@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120817132720.0a2ebe40@elandnews.com> <0FB15295-6265-417F-A7A8-59A0D7C90177@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120819072344.08dc0970@elandnews.com> To: S Moonesamy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1280) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:04:16 -0700 Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org, Bob Hinden Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Diff of RFC 3777 and draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02 (was: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01.txt) 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: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:58:45 -0000 Thanks, I will take a look. Bob On Aug 19, 2012, at 7:37 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Bob, > At 13:53 17-08-2012, Bob Hinden wrote: >> Yes, it would help for reviewing this draft, but it will still make = it complicated for future noncom's to understand the rules. A single = document would be easier to understand. >=20 > There is an version of RFC 3777 with the updates from = draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02 at = http://www.elandsys.com/resources/ietf/drafts/rfc3777up-diff-02.html >=20 > Regards, > S. Moonesamy=20 From sm@elandsys.com Wed Aug 22 00:01:50 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 BCA3121F8598 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:01:50 -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=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id heZxbiF5S3eS for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:01:45 -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 5838A21F8585 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.234.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7M71O9D007331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:01:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1345618898; bh=KcrDiF0pgoCP6Z0Ba4iZu350ZBW7aLdOaU7LAh58/qM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=SHzAM6qaQSqVKocs1RqnSej7wSKbxoUqwqjUZzOsm7HyZJ4bGA0TyANNudrnTPwN2 KTlas0cqbfyyzqr5MbABIrSxknfEkVFNdoImd01/EXE76U2/cTqBZQ+B2xBh8UFizC 8JOib6uRJ6yV9hgTArfpRF0KgGa2RbDsCt0mlSAo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1345618898; i=@elandsys.com; bh=KcrDiF0pgoCP6Z0Ba4iZu350ZBW7aLdOaU7LAh58/qM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=wrchwe7umpvhX9IlW5PYK0y3fMXxR535pcn/5dgk2OeC4Zh1igBBMTDq5d+U/4Cba OQo48ROqmFi/L8Q0Yr7YAKCNoKraoyzrX3GLhz1CFVEhxtaXp3/j42u+jdA48JyUFE IdK5sfzXcjupbtG2vhhUlCx9hD0zeYHqjKENis38= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120821232519.0a0437c8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:17 -0700 To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <133201cd7f85$325f59a0$971e0ce0$@olddog.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt 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, 22 Aug 2012 07:01:50 -0000 At 14:27 21-08-2012, Barry Leiba wrote: >The specific exclusions that are in the real "rules" part are for the >IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor. I would be just as happy to >remove those. We can question whether we want to leave the RSE in, >specifically, but there's probably no real need to exclude the paid >RFC Editor function employees. I'll note that the IAD is already >excluded by the "ex-officio" clause (he's an ex-officio IAOC member). >The current IAD has told me that he thinks it would be inappropriate >for the IAD to volunteer in any case, whether or not he's allowed to. > >Margaret has commented that this stuff should come out. Others, in >early conversations and discussions about all of this, thought it >should be in. Further comments appreciated. > >In particular: should bullet 15,2 (and its supporting text elsewhere) >be removed? Appendix A of RFC 3777 mentions oral tradition and has the following text: 'The number of nominating committee members with the same primary affiliation is limited in order to avoid the appearance of improper bias in choosing the leadership of the IETF. Rather than defining precise rules for how to define "affiliation", the IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the participants to make the process work.' Instead of defining precise rules, we could do an update to the "oral tradition" to include the information provided in bullet 15.2. The intention is for the update to be minimal. I thought of the term "ex officio positions". It's not as precise as "members" or "liaisons". I'll plead guilty to the charge of hand-waving. Regards, S. Moonesamy From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Aug 22 01:19:13 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 7E40E21F850B for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 01:19:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.526 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hLwWq9f-QMo1 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 01:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382A921F844D for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 01:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7M8In2D025620; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:18:50 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7M8Imna025612 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:18:49 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'S Moonesamy'" , References: <133201cd7f85$325f59a0$971e0ce0$@olddog.co.uk> <6.2.5.6.2.20120821232519.0a0437c8@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120821232519.0a0437c8@elandnews.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:18:46 +0100 Message-ID: <14f501cd803e$c1780b50$446821f0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKeymM+EHr04TPM6WVIrAnLSY7g2QIgo1rmAbQhJcoCFxV9YZWTicwA Content-Language: en-gb Cc: draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk 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, 22 Aug 2012 08:19:13 -0000 That is by far the best suggestion. Thanks. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com] > Sent: 22 August 2012 08:00 > To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > Cc: draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility@tools.ietf.org; adrian@olddog.co.uk > Subject: Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt > > At 14:27 21-08-2012, Barry Leiba wrote: > >The specific exclusions that are in the real "rules" part are for the > >IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor. I would be just as happy to > >remove those. We can question whether we want to leave the RSE in, > >specifically, but there's probably no real need to exclude the paid > >RFC Editor function employees. I'll note that the IAD is already > >excluded by the "ex-officio" clause (he's an ex-officio IAOC member). > >The current IAD has told me that he thinks it would be inappropriate > >for the IAD to volunteer in any case, whether or not he's allowed to. > > > >Margaret has commented that this stuff should come out. Others, in > >early conversations and discussions about all of this, thought it > >should be in. Further comments appreciated. > > > >In particular: should bullet 15,2 (and its supporting text elsewhere) > >be removed? > > Appendix A of RFC 3777 mentions oral tradition and has the following text: > > 'The number of nominating committee members with the same primary > affiliation is limited in order to avoid the appearance of > improper bias in choosing the leadership of the IETF. Rather > than defining precise rules for how to define "affiliation", the > IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the > participants to make the process work.' > > Instead of defining precise rules, we could do an update to the "oral > tradition" to include the information provided in bullet 15.2. The > intention is for the update to be minimal. I thought of the term "ex > officio positions". It's not as precise as "members" or > "liaisons". I'll plead guilty to the charge of hand-waving. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy