Griffiths as the new
IAOC chair. I think Chris will be an excellent chair and that he has my
complete support.
Congratulations to Chris!
The change in IAOC chairs is effective with this email.
Bob Hinden
IAOC Chair, I would like to issue a Consensus Call asking for community
affirmation of the IETF Trust document. I would appreciate an up or down
response and I am requesting a closing date of November 25th for the
Consensus Call.
Additional Information:
We (IAOC) have reached substantial agreement
ved from
> >that position at any time by a vote of 5/8 of the voting IAOC members.
> >
> > That is what I now have in my editing buffer.
>
> I think at least 2 people preferred to say "2/3 of the voting IAOC members,
> not counting the IAOC chair", which
ing IAOC members.
That is what I now have in my editing buffer.
I think at least 2 people preferred to say "2/3 of the voting IAOC members,
not counting the IAOC chair", which would have the same effect on numbers.
I could live with that.
; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harald
> Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 21:43
> To: Kai Henningsen; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Suggested resolution - #826: Section 4 - Removal of the
> IAOC Chair
>
>
>
>
> --On
On Sunday, January 30, 2005 21:42:32 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On lørdag, januar 29, 2005 11:47:00 +0200 Kai Henningsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It was the fraction "2/3" that Russ objected to in the first place,
pointing out that this means 6 out of 8 if every
Harald asks:
> is using
> the term "5/8 of the voting members" an acceptable phrase?
it's just what I was asking for (i.e, to answer your question - yes)
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--On lørdag, januar 29, 2005 11:47:00 +0200 Kai Henningsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It was the fraction "2/3" that Russ objected to in the first place,
pointing out that this means 6 out of 8 if everyone's present - which he
thought was too much of a required majority.
Which just points to a l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 28.01.05 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> --On fredag, januar 28, 2005 08:19:03 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Harald suggests
> >The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
> >that positi
--On fredag, januar 28, 2005 08:19:03 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Harald suggests
The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
that position at any time by a vote of five of the IAOC voting members.
I don't think its a good idea to use absolute n
and not a majority of those present at a meeting to remove the
chair.
a.
On 28 jan 2005, at 04.10, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Russ raised the issue that 2/3 majority to remove an IAOC chair seems
a bit excessive, considering that this requires 6 votes out of 8, with
the chair being one of
Harald suggests
The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
that position at any time by a vote of five of the IAOC voting members.
I don't think its a good idea to use absolute numbers - its better
to use fractions '4/5ths of the voting members' for example - in
Russ raised the issue that 2/3 majority to remove an IAOC chair seems a bit
excessive, considering that this requires 6 votes out of 8, with the chair
being one of the 8. So the chair + 2 others could hold on to the chair
position.
Scott mentioned that removing a chair is serious, so we should
13 matches
Mail list logo
