--On Saturday, July 06, 2013 14:53 -0700 NomCom Chair 2013
wrote:
> I am pleased to announce that we have 140 qualified
> individuals who have generously volunteered to serve as
> voting members of this year's Nomcom.
Allison,
Given my previous comment about statistical assertions, a quick
I find the presumption that IETF attendees employed by companies that send
large number of attendees are robots to be somewhat distasteful. It also
doesn't match my experience. I am sure that _some_ attendees from large
companies are just as partisan as you fear, but some are not. So I am
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> if one wanted to minimize
> the odds of organizations trying to game the nomcom selection
> process, it would be rational to do a two step draw, first
> randomly selecting two volunteers from any organization offering
> more than two and then
The -04 version of this draft resolves the minor issue noted in
the Gen-ART review of the -03 version.
There is a remaining editorial nit, in that the one use of
"non-network" in the -04 version would benefit from clarification.
I suggest the following text change to the start of the paragraph
tha
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 13:49 + Ted Lemon
wrote:
> I find the presumption that IETF attendees employed by
> companies that send large number of attendees are robots to be
> somewhat distasteful. It also doesn't match my experience.
> I am sure that _some_ attendees from large companie
Hello,
I was checking the deadlines for submitting drafts. Clear it is
Monday 15th July but it does not say the time.
Thanks,
as
On 7/3/13 2:17 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
> Please note that for IETF 87, there is only one deadline for draft
> submission: Monday 15th July. Previously, there ha
Arturo,
The time is the same as usual (UTC 24:00) and it's posted online in the
Important Dates section here:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF87.
Regards,
Alexa
On Jul 9, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Hello,
>
>I was checking the deadlines for submitti
Thanks Alexa.
Best regards,
as
On 7/9/13 4:59 PM, Alexa Morris wrote:
> Arturo,
>
> The time is the same as usual (UTC 24:00) and it's posted online in the
> Important Dates section here:
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF87.
>
> Regards,
> Alexa
>
> On Jul 9, 20
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a
new version of the draft.
Document: draft-thornburgh-ad
> (2) Four companies account for 44.3% of the volunteers.
OK, but what would X be in "Four companies account for X% of
people eligible to volunteer"?
That said, the "not more than two from the same employer" rule
was written in anticipation of a theoretical problem; it seems
that it was a good id
Should we consider changing it to "not more than one" in view
of today's data?
On it's face, that sounds like an absolutely Draconian rule.
However stepping back a bit, it should prompt a simple question: Is the
IETF so reliant on a tiny number of companies that we cannot produce
viable c
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>> Should we consider changing it to "not more than one" in view
>> of today's data?
>
>
>
> On it's face, that sounds like an absolutely Draconian rule.
>
> However stepping back a bit, it should prompt a simple question: Is the
> IETF so rel
On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a
> few megacorporations?
>
> (That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?)
I don't know the answer to that question, but it's an interesting question.
But th
On Jul 10, 2013, at 12:07 AM, Ted Lemon
wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
>> Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a
>> few megacorporations?
>>
>> (That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?)
>
> I don't know the answer
At 06:49 09-07-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
I find the presumption that IETF attendees employed by companies
that send large number of attendees are robots to be somewhat
distasteful. It also doesn't match my experience. I am sure that
_some_ attendees from large companies are just as partisan as
On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
>> Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a
>> few megacorporations?
>>
>> (That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?)
>
> I don't know the answer to
hi Ben.
your "like to see" is entirely reasonable, and the following text will be in
the next revision once my AD or Document Shepherd directs me to post it:
Note to implementers: at the time of writing, the Cryptography
Profile used by the above mentioned Adobe products is not publicly
Thanks Michael, that note would completely resolve my concern, and change my
review summary to "ready for publication".
Ben.
On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:03 PM, Michael Thornburgh wrote:
> hi Ben.
>
> your "like to see" is entirely reasonable, and the following text will be in
> the next revision on
Ah, Allison actually misspelled it in setting her reply-to. So all replies
would bounce.
Seriously guys, nom-com is the way to go to reduce this confusion. Needs a
minus.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
On plus side, I didn't make the typo, only copied it and couldn't spot it. Go
me!
On 7/9/2013 8:59 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
The sample is better at 140 if individuals represent themselves, but
not if they are swayed by their organizational affiliation, and
organization is now a significant factor in what we can expect from
volunteers -- not all, but even some of those from orga
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> - I'm not sure we can even know what the 10 voting members *were*
> guided by, unless the behavior is so bad that the advisor freaks out
> or the chair tells us in the plenary Nomcom report
and Yoav Nir wrote:
> how much can a nomcom member (or a pair of them) do to
On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Spencer Dawkins
wrote:
> On 7/9/2013 8:59 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
>> The sample is better at 140 if individuals represent themselves, but not if
>> they are swayed by their organizational affiliation, and organization is now
>> a significant factor in what we can exp
Hi John,
Excuse me for replying to just part of your message below:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>...
>
> (3) It is probably too late to even discuss it for this year
> (see below) but it occurs to me that, if one wanted to minimize
> the odds of organizations trying t
Hi Brian,
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
>> (2) Four companies account for 44.3% of the volunteers.
>
> OK, but what would X be in "Four companies account for X% of
> people eligible to volunteer"?
>
> That said, the "not more than two from the same employer" rule
> was
I do recall a case where both chairs of a WG belonged to a Major Organization.
World domination was thwarted, however, because the chairs couldn't actually
agree on anything; the organization was big enough that competing views
were widespread within it.
Much to the frustration of other members o
On 7/9/2013 5:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
I do recall a case where both chairs of a WG belonged to a Major Organization.
World domination was thwarted, however, because the chairs couldn't actually
agree on anything; the organization was big enough that competing views
were widespread with
On 7/9/2013 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into
a few megacorporations?
(That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?)
I don't know the answer to that question, but it's
Please note that the deadline for volunteering is 19 July 2013. Please pass
this call for volunteer to anyone that might be interested.
Russ
= = = = = = = = = =
Dear Colleagues,
The IAB (on behalf of the IETF) has been asked to supply a member to the 2014
ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom)
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 19:43 -0400 Donald Eastlake
wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Excuse me for replying to just part of your message below:
No problem.
I found your explanation helpful.Two observations at the
risk of repeating myself
(1) I did not make a proposal. I did point out that
29 matches
Mail list logo
