On 12 Nov 2015, at 23:45, Jim Martin wrote:
> Can he simply be appointed by acclamation?
Jim, the idea is the WG decides by consensus who fills the vacancy. It will be
easier to make that consensus judgement if there are more statements of support
(or opposition) for the nominees. Clearly, it
Mr Knight certainly has my endorsement. Can he simply be appointed by
acclamation?
-Jim
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 12, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> Colleagues, there's still time left to nominate candidates and to express
> support for those who have been nominated. The r
Hi,
On 12 November 2015 at 22:33:37, Chris Baker (cba...@dyn.com) wrote:
I too would be happy to see David Knight as co-chair for the dns-wg
I also support David’s nomination.
Cheers,
—
Nico Cartron
I, also, salute our new dns-wg overlord and master!
Oh wait, there's some due process we need to go through first.
Nick
On 12/11/2015 17:53, Shane Kerr wrote:
> I would be very happy if David Knight were to act as co-chair for this
> working group.
>
> Jim Reid schreef op 12 november 2015 17:4
I too would be happy to see David Knight as co-chair for the dns-wg
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Shane Kerr
wrote:
> I would be very happy if David Knight were to act as co-chair for this
> working group.
>
> Jim Reid schreef op 12 november 2015 17:47:09 CET:
>>
>> Colleagues, there's stil
I would be very happy if David Knight were to act as co-chair for this working
group.
Jim Reid schreef op 12 november 2015 17:47:09 CET:
>Colleagues, there's still time left to nominate candidates and to
>express support for those who have been nominated. The response so far
>from the WG has bee
Colleagues, there's still time left to nominate candidates and to express
support for those who have been nominated. The response so far from the WG has
been disappointing and that's making it awkward to decide if consensus has been
reached.
Please speak up! Even if it's just to say "meh". :-)
On 25/11/2014 18:46, Jim Reid wrote:
> But why should this be a problem?
I'm not saying it'll ever be a problem for DNS-WG in the future, just that
it's been a problem for other WGs in the past. Those who don't learn their
history are condemned to repeat it.
Nick
On 25/11/2014 18:15, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:09:25PM +, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>> [2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number
>> of co-chairs. Terms will be staggered so that one term expires every
>> year. A co-chair cannot serve more than 2 consecutiv
On 25 Nov 2014, at 17:54, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> You're welcome for the comments. I wasn't able to make the london wg
> session and only subscribed to the mailing list on Oct 11, which was a
> couple of days after the previous discussion about chair proposals ended.
> Timing is everything, appar
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:09:25PM +, Jim Reid wrote:
> [2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number
> of co-chairs. Terms will be staggered so that one term expires every
> year. A co-chair cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms.
as was mentioned during the session,
On 25/11/2014 14:42, Jim Reid wrote:
> Nick, thanks for your comments.
>
> I'm both surprised and disappointed. Surprised because the mood of the
> room/WG appears to be the proposed text is "good enough". Nobody has
> advocated making radical surgery to it despite the proposed text being
> in cir
On 25 Nov 2014, at 12:37, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Jim, the proposal is non-deterministic.
Nick, thanks for your comments.
I'm both surprised and disappointed. Surprised because the mood of the room/WG
appears to be the proposed text is "good enough". Nobody has advocated making
radical surger
> On 25 Nov 2014, at 12:37, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> On 25/11/2014 12:09, Jim Reid wrote:
>> In case anyone cares, here's that proposed text again.
>
> Jim, the proposal is non-deterministic. There's no discriminator in place
> to decide who gets to stand down if N changes and two chairs need
On 25/11/2014 12:09, Jim Reid wrote:
> In case anyone cares, here's that proposed text again.
Jim, the proposal is non-deterministic. There's no discriminator in place
to decide who gets to stand down if N changes and two chairs need to stand
down at the same time, or if somehow the chair terms b
Colleagues, there's been very little response or discussion about the procedure
which was proposed at the beginning of October.
I think it's now time to start a "Last Call" on this. If anyone has any tweaks
to he proposed text or counter proposals, please speak up now! It would be
helpful if an
16 matches
Mail list logo
