On Sunday, June 30, 2013, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Scott Brim >
>
> > Please someone find and share the UUCP message where the body said "I
> > don't understand the concern about too many message headers."
>
> I don't know about there being a UUCP one, but here:
>
> http://www.c
> From: Scott Brim
> Please someone find and share the UUCP message where the body said "I
> don't understand the concern about too many message headers."
I don't know about there being a UUCP one, but here:
http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/humour/net.header
is the ARPANET one.
Please someone find and share the UUCP message where the body said "I don't
understand the concern about too many message headers."
: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re:
The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)
> From: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
> Yet.
PS: I probably should have added a ":-)" to that. Sorry, it's early, the
brain's not firing on all cylinders yet,
The shortest ietf email was sent at least 20 years ago, consisted of a single
"!" as the body. Of course the subject went on for two lines. I forget what
the subject was. Mike
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 29, 2013, at 15:43, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 06/29/2013 05:28 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>
In article <51cf38eb.3080...@dougbarton.us> you write:
>On 06/29/2013 05:28 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> > From: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
>>
>> > Yet.
>>
>> PS: I probably should have added a ":-)" to that. Sorry, it's early, the
>> brain's not firing on all cylinders yet, an
On 06/29/2013 05:28 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
> Yet.
PS: I probably should have added a ":-)" to that. Sorry, it's early, the
brain's not firing on all cylinders yet, and I was so entranced by the chance
to set the record for the shortest
> From: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
> Yet.
PS: I probably should have added a ":-)" to that. Sorry, it's early, the
brain's not firing on all cylinders yet, and I was so entranced by the chance
to set the record for the shortest ever IETF list e-mail... :-)
Noel
> From: "Adrian Farrel"
> "told not to post" is, AFAIK only achievable through a posting ban,
> which you don't seem to have received.
Yet.
Noel
> This message is reply to an author of a new draft under ietf discussion.
> If this list is not the correct place to discuss such matter, then the
> list's responsible Chair is required to give details of where to
> discuss such new work.
I have no idea what a "list's responsible chair" is, but t
This message is reply to an author of a new draft under ietf discussion.
If this list is not the correct place to discuss such matter, then the
list's responsible Chair is required to give details of where to
discuss such new work.
+
Hi Moonesamy,
(t
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 12:44 +0100, Arturo Servin (probably did not
intend to) wrote:
> What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to
> meetings?
I attend all meetings psychically so spriritual!
Sorry.. couldn't resist.
E.
On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Scott Brim wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Michael Richardson
> >
> wrote:
> > Just as long as you understand that you are influencing the diversity of
> the nomcom itself.
>
> Yes, we need to cultivate more talent and more viewpoints while
> simultaneously u
Hi Abdussalam,
At 12:16 27-06-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I support the draft, it will give all participants from all the
world equal opputunity. I made input related to this on the list
because I found that I am remote participant and there was limits
and conditions which I don't want. Howe
At 12:38 27-06-2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I think you can rely on each person actually on NomCom to speak their mind and
deliver from their experience (and we can rely on the NomCom chair
to tease that
out). So surely we can say something like:
2 old-timers chosen randomly from a list of old-ti
[I have significantly cut down the thread to respond to a couple points.]
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:54 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>
>
> In principle, one could consider the "do we want this" and "what
>> would the criteria be" questions in either order. In practice,
>> I think the former question i
Hi John,
At 12:33 27-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
I'm not sure I agree and want to come back to an earlier point
-- we should figure out what we really need and want and then
see if we can work out the details to make it work. If we
The definition of "attend" is and has been people who pay t
On 06/27/2013 02:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hello,
RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet
Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility propose
> > Because of that, weakening requirements for NomCom participation
> > greatly increases the probability that our culture will fracture, and
> > our mission statement lose meaning, before we have a chance to agree
> > on what they should become. I supported the proposal to requir
--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:29 -0700 S Moonesamy
wrote:
> At 09:44 27-06-2013, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> sorry, but it's silly to attempt to propose that remote
>> attendees be permitted to volunteer for NomCom without
>> defining what defines a remote attendee.
>
> Agreed.
I'm not sure I
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Just as long as you understand that you are influencing the diversity of the
> nomcom itself.
Yes, we need to cultivate more talent and more viewpoints while
simultaneously using hard-earned wisdom and encouraging growth of that
wisdom
Thanks Moonesamy,
I support the draft, it will give all participants from all the world equal
opputunity. I made input related to this on the list because I found that I
am remote participant and there was limits and conditions which I don't
want. However, there may be some reasons that IETF done
On Jun 27, 2013, at 10:29 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> I think that the NomCom eligibility criteria should not discriminate between
> any contributor to the IETF Standard Process.
-1. Those choosing the leadership of an organization should understand more
than the leadership of the one WG they h
Scott Brim wrote:
> Because of that, weakening requirements for NomCom participation
> greatly increases the probability that our culture will fracture, and
> our mission statement lose meaning, before we have a chance to agree
> on what they should become. I supported the propos
On 6/27/2013 3:50 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
However, before getting into that I'd like to hear from
folks who've been on or chaired nomcoms. I know a lot of
it is done remotely, but how important is the f2f part
that happens during meetings? Would it really be ok if
say 5 voting members could ne
These days I don't contribute much to the IETF, so I hesitate to say
much, but I care about it a lot and may contribute again someday.
IMHO ...
Once I lived in Japan for a year and got to think I understood
Japanese culture, but finally realized I had hardly scratched the
surface. Once, in German
At 09:44 27-06-2013, Eggert, Lars wrote:
sorry, but it's silly to attempt to propose that remote attendees be
permitted to volunteer for NomCom without defining what defines a
remote attendee.
Agreed.
The issue you are raising - that limiting the NomCom pool to recent
attendees of physical I
Yes, but instead of 150 volunteers from other organizations we could
have 500. So the probabilities are back to the same.
/as
On 6/27/13 4:07 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> I believe the proposal as stated would further exacerbate that problem - not
> for a given company, but for pretty much
--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:07 -0400 Michael StJohns
wrote:
>...
> But that's still problematic. The current rules basically
> give any company who provides >= 30% of the Nomcom volunteer
> pool an ~85.1% chance of having 2 members (sum of all
> percentages from 2-10 members), a 12.1% chan
On 6/27/13 5:08 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> I have attended some IETF meetings remotely and I am not in favor of this
> change.
To be honest, I'm skeptical, myself. I have attended a lot of
meetings remotely and I don't think that it provides enough
context to be able to provide the background
On Jun 27, 2013, at 9:26 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> I prefer not to get into a definition of "remote attendance" for now.
Then maybe we should wait for you to do so. This discussion is kind of
pointless if we don't have shared definitions.
--Paul Hoffman
Hi,
On Jun 27, 2013, at 18:26, S Moonesamy
wrote:
>> (1) How do you define "remote attendance"?
>>
>> (2) How does the secretariat determine whether someone has remotely
>> attended? (Based on whatever definition of remote attendance you have in
>> mind.)
>
> I prefer not to get into a defin
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Alia Atlas wrote:
> > I have attended one meeting remotely - and the experience is nothing
> at all
> > like being at IETF. I can see modifying NomCom eligibility
> constraints
> > slightly - but I really do not think tha
Hello,
I'll reply to several messages below to reduce ietf@ mail traffic.
At 03:03 27-06-2013, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Section 2 says:
RFC 3777 [RFC3777], Section 5, "Nominating Committee Operation",
Paragraph 1 of Rule 14, is replaced as follows:
Members of the IETF community must hav
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> At 09:51 AM 6/27/2013, David Meyer wrote:
>>On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent "capture", no more than X% of
the NomC
At 09:51 AM 6/27/2013, David Meyer wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>
>> On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>>
>>> Why not just say directly that 'to prevent "capture", no more than X% of
>>> the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
At 11:13 AM 6/27/2013, Scott Brim wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> Once scenario for this - both benign intentions and non-benign - is that a
>> company instead of sending one person to all the meetings starts rotating
>> the opportunity to attend the IETF amon
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Once scenario for this - both benign intentions and non-benign - is that a
> company instead of sending one person to all the meetings starts rotating the
> opportunity to attend the IETF among a number of people - say 5.
Some already d
Eliot Lear wrote:
> I think what you're getting at is that there are different types of remote
> participation. If one wants to listen in, that should only require the
> appropriate software and a network connection. If one actually wants to
> participate, then one either has to
At 09:42 AM 6/27/2013, Eliot Lear wrote:
>On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>
>> Why not just say directly that 'to prevent "capture", no more than X% of
>> the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
>> that even if a couple collude, they still can't get contro
Alia Atlas wrote:
> I have attended one meeting remotely - and the experience is nothing at
all
> like being at IETF. I can see modifying NomCom eligibility constraints
> slightly - but I really do not think that remote attendees will have the
> necessary experience and accultur
Michael,
I think what you're getting at is that there are different types of
remote participation. If one wants to listen in, that should only
require the appropriate software and a network connection. If one
actually wants to participate, then one either has to get onto a WeBex
or Meetecho syst
--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 09:35 -0400 Alia Atlas
wrote:
> Just a quick aside, but having run an interim WG meeting where
> we did not charge a meeting fee and knowing how significantly
> attendance diverged, I would strongly support at least some
> meeting fee for remote attendance. There's
On Jun 27, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> Why not just say directly that 'to prevent "capture", no more than X% of
> the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
> that even if a couple collude, they still can't get control).
There are already controls for th
Hi,
I am strongly opposed to a remote meeting registration process and remote
meeting fees.
This increases the financial bias towards large corporate control of IETF
standards.
I like the IETF because anybody can comment on a draft or write a draft
without
paying fees.
I think there could be seve
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>
>> Why not just say directly that 'to prevent "capture", no more than X% of
>> the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
>> that even if a couple collude, they still can
--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:50 +0100 Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>...
> (*) Like I said, too early to get into it, but the nomcom
> selection process could also require that the voting
> members collectively have been to N meetings, with each
> voting member able to contribute at most M to that
Hi Alejandro,
At 05:42 27-06-2013, alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com wrote:
First, as a comment, I guess there is people who follow more IETF
remotely than other in place.
Yes.
Here's is an extract from a Jabber log:
"I don't think I've seen a WG chatroom this full before
Well the future
On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
> Why not just say directly that 'to prevent "capture", no more than X% of
> the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
> that even if a couple collude, they still can't get control).
>
It's already in RFC 3777. No more than
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Arturo Servin wrote:
> > Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF
> > meeting. You have to register, pay and collect your badge. However,
> in
> > remote participation we do not have mechanisms to v
Just a quick aside, but having run an interim WG meeting where we did not
charge a meeting fee and knowing how significantly attendance diverged, I
would strongly support at least some meeting fee for remote attendance.
There's also the key fact that the IETF is funded by IETF meeting fees and
ISO
> From: John Curran
> the proposed language also increases the possibility of "capture" (i.e.
> the ability of an single organization to inappropriately skew the
> outcome of the process)
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent "capture", no more than X% of
the NomCom may wor
On 06/27/2013 02:24 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
> > However, before getting into that I'd like to hear from
> > folks who've been on or chaired nomcoms. I know a lot of
> > it is done remotely, but how important is the f2f part
> > that happens durin
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> However, before getting into that I'd like to hear from
> folks who've been on or chaired nomcoms. I know a lot of
> it is done remotely, but how important is the f2f part
> that happens during meetings? Would it really be ok if
> say 5 voting members
Arturo Servin wrote:
> Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF
> meeting. You have to register, pay and collect your badge. However, in
> remote participation we do not have mechanisms to verify that somebody
> attended to a session.
We need to have regis
I have not read the thread yet, on purpose.
As a person who has done significant remote participation myself, and has also
observed the difficulty new people have in understanding how things fit
together, I can not support your specific proposal, but I support the idea.
I would suggest:
2. Upd
I have attended some IETF meetings remotely and I am not in favor of this
change.
On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture
> Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Ov
John,
I agree with everything you wrote. I especially applaud SM for getting
out there with new ideas, and I like the idea of opening up eligibility
a bit more. John's proposed change would reduce risk of capture. I do
think that risk is also mitigated through other mechanisms (like
limiting th
2013 07:06:36
To: S Moonesamy
Cc: Internet Whining TF
Subject: Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility
On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture
> Board, Internet Engineering St
On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture
> Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Oversight
> Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
>
> draft-moonesamy-nomco
On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> "must have attended at least 5 meetings of the last 15 and including one of
> the last 5".
>
> may be a good compromise. Also, I would suggest "one of the last 6"
> (instead of 5). I guess in two years the IETF does not change too much.
Ted,
Thanks.
Perhaps then Olafur recommendation:
"must have attended at least 5 meetings of the last 15 and including one of the
last 5".
may be a good compromise. Also, I would suggest "one of the last 6"
(instead of 5). I guess in two years the IETF does not change too much
On Jun 27, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to
> meetings?
Acculturation: the opportunity over time to absorb the IETF culture and become
a part of it. The other points you raised are valid, but this is the main
thing.
I have a general question.
What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to
meetings?
- That nomcom participants know the IETF
- That nomcom participant know in person people appointed to IESG,
IAB, etc
- To avoid game/abuse the system by an organization?
Hi Arturo,
At 03:00 27-06-2013, Arturo Servin wrote:
I read the draft and although I like the idea I have some concerns.
Thanks for taking the time to read the draft. I'll comment below.
Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF
meeting. You have to register, p
On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture
> Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Oversight
> Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
>
> draft-moonesamy-nomc
On 06/27/2013 10:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet
> Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF
> Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
>
> draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligi
> I guess you can prove attendance by Jabber log
as much of the acculturation happens outside of wgs, we can have the nsa
install jabber spies in the hallway. and they log everything!
randy
On Jun 27, 2013, at 1:03 PM, "Eggert, Lars" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Section 2 says:
> RFC 3777 [RFC3777], Section 5, "Nominating Committee Operation",
> Paragraph 1 of Rule 14, is replaced as follows:
>
> Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
> last 5 IETF meeti
Hi,
Section 2 says:
RFC 3777 [RFC3777], Section 5, "Nominating Committee Operation",
Paragraph 1 of Rule 14, is replaced as follows:
Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
last 5 IETF meetings remotely or in person including at least 1 of
the 5 last
SM,
I read the draft and although I like the idea I have some concerns.
Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF
meeting. You have to register, pay and collect your badge. However, in
remote participation we do not have mechanisms to verify that somebody
attended t
Hello,
RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet
Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility proposes an update RFC 3777 to
allow remote con
72 matches
Mail list logo
