Re: Perspectives on the IETF & Restructuring

At 11:18 AM 11/9/2004, Robert Kahn wrote: While discussions about organizational change have been ongoing for a while, a thoughtful approach to restructuring was recently put forth by Patrice Lyons as an Internet Draft (draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt), and should be carefully con

Another document series?

Folks - I've recently been asked to review a number of works in progress related to restructuring and other similar things. Those documents were liberally splattered with references to various IDs (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt, http://www.ietf.org/interne

Re: Another document series?

At 12:49 PM 11/30/2004, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>> "Michael" == Michael StJohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Michael> It seems to me that neither ID status nor RFC status are Michael> appropriate for these documents. The ID series is, by Michael

Re: Adminrest: created IPR

The specific term is "work for hire". All data, created software, etc must be considered the result of "work for hire" and as such is the property of ISOC in trust for the IETF. At 08:58 AM 12/3/2004, Allison Mankin wrote: Folks, Good stuff here, but... I'd like to put in a plug for making it

Suggest new mailing list for IASA stuff

The IASA, AdminRest et al discussions appear to be proceeding well, but perhaps it might make sense to craft a mailing list specifically for those discussions ? Its possible the recent (last 2 week) upswing in the number of related posts to the ietf mailing list will die down shortly, but my g

Re: Suggest new mailing list for IASA stuff

the side of inclusiveness. Hopefully this (the direction-setting part) WILL be over soon, and we can all settle down and let "those who care" debate "the details" on some other mailing list Harald --On torsdag, desember 09, 2004 11:41:24 -0500 Micha

Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members

*bleah* Generally its better to have rules *before* the exceptional events occur. "The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only." At 11:32 AM 1/7/2005, John C Klensin wrote: --On Friday, 07 Januar

Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members

Hmm... No, actually I think this is right. This is guidance to the IAOC for publishing the rules not the rules themselves. In general, the rules should only cover exceptional expenses (e.g. spent $1000 paying the teleconference bill for xxx), but the IAOC can also establish rules for non-exce

Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

Hi Harald et al - I apologize for chiming in on this so late, but I had hopes it would get worked out without me pushing over apple carts. I can't support this and I recommend deleting this section in its entirety. My cut on this: The decisions of the IAD should be subject to review (and in some

Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

At 06:21 PM 1/19/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote: Interesting... To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with decisions about implementing requirements, I agree. To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining those requireme

Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

de to make a response, > and on the form of a response. Yes, but the stuff about decision review in Harald's text is pretty clear that its the "person" or "body" that's subject to review. At 04:10 AM 1/20/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Michael StJohns wrote: At a minim

Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

At 06:25 AM 1/20/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On torsdag, januar 20, 2005 00:00:36 -0500 Michael StJohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you (general plural) really feel this section needs to stand I think you need to address at least two issues and narrow them substantially: w

Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

John/Leslie et al - this is a good improvement, and Leslie's 3.5 now reads in a way I can support. 3.6 still has some sticking points. After the last round of comments I went away and thought and came up with the following: There are three separate things that I think were meant by the origina

Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

At 11:50 AM 1/23/2005, John C Klensin wrote: I deleted all the stuff I agreed with - e.g. most of it. I'm afraid I agree with you that there a vast chasm of differences on this topic. I also agree with you that the body should be independent and that others disagree. *sigh* In any event I'm

Re: Uneccesary slowness.

Bob/Steve - I think some static got in the way. Bob - I think what Steve meant was that for any given product absent any other competing demands on time, it should take "n" days for stage "x". Project management 101.  Project management 102 is about dealing with a lot of competing demands and st

Re: Keeping this IETF's schedule in the future...?

The bar at the top of La Fayette has similar prices - first drink after 9:30pm is 21.50 E, second and so on is 15E or so. OTOH if we could get wireless at James Joyce I'd be over there mostly Mike At 09:14 AM 8/3/2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lars Eggert

Re: Keeping this IETF's schedule in the future...?

Agree with Scott. Also, one of the interesting side effects already alluded to by I think Steve B: Evening sessions had the benefit/curse of having people come back to the site after dinner. The lack of that as well as the somewhat unfriendly (cost wise/ location relative to site wise) bar

20 years later - where are we?

The 20th anniversary of the first meeting of the IETF is coming up fast - January 2006. I think a little history is in order for some of the newcomers. I was recently cleaning out some of my older files and found the attached "Internet Problem Reports" from late 1986. These were really the fi

Re: Beyond conflict

This is a pretty good point given the recent rash of discussions on the list. Perhaps what we do is to move discussions from this list to a Jabber room dedicated for the specific discussion.  Pick a time/day and a moderator? (Or rotating moderators?) Later, Mike At 01:31 PM 10/10/2005, Hallam-Ba

Re: Beyond conflict

At 02:43 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: Michael StJohns wrote: Jabber room dedicated for the specific discussion. im systems do not have threading, nor is it clear how threading could/should be done. -- E.g. Jabber room for discussion on foo, jabber room for discussion on bar, etc. The key

Re: Thoughts on the nomcom process

This isn't a dangerous precedent, this is the IAB doing its due diligence. One of the possible outcomes here could have been the IAB simply rejecting those candidates for which it could not form an opinion due to lack of information. Confirmation is an "affirmative" action, not simply a lack of

Re: Thoughts on the nomcom process

At 05:46 PM 3/16/2008, Ole Jacobsen wrote: >You said: > >" The confirming bodies should not be concerned with the way the > Nomcom got to the point of nominating someone (at least not during > the process), but they are there to examine the nomination and > nominee and to determine if - in th

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

At 07:18 PM 3/16/2008, Dave Crocker wrote: >> I'm >> unsure how the confirming body confirms the candidate without also being >> apprised of this information. > > >This seems to go to the heart of a long-standing dilemma in the IETF: > >Is it the job of a reviewing body to pre-empt len

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

:-) This is a slight misquote of my "The Nomcom's goal should be to select the best qualified candidates from the pool of volunteers. The confirming bodies should confirm any candidate they believe to be fully qualified." N.B.; Reasonable people can differ on whether any given candidate is f

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

At 09:16 PM 3/16/2008, Ralph Droms wrote: >On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Michael StJohns wrote: >>[...] >>Put another way, the Nomcom is a search committee, but the hiring authority >>resides in the confirming bodies. > >Mike - I fundamentally and strongly disagree. In my o

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

My apologies, I was going to leave this alone, but this ... chastisement .. is off-target. At 09:50 PM 3/16/2008, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >Mike, whatever your personal opinion, based on the public information >many people have concluded in good faith that something went wrong. I agree with this

Re: Thoughts on the nomcom process

At 05:06 PM 3/17/2008, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: >Mike, > >Thanks for your note. > >Are you saying that there is text within 3777 that says that confirming bodies >should not ask for verbatim feedback but could ask for verbatim questionnaire >responses? No. There is no text in 3777 which prohi

Re: On the confidentiality of the information and communication within the nomcom context

At 10:46 PM 3/17/2008, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >*The names of people nominated should be made public. >*The names of the people who agreed to serve if selected should be kept >secret. +1 Open enough to get feedback, but kind to the rejected candidates. __

Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9

Can I suggest this discussion be transferred off the main list and to either the 6man list or the v6opts list (or both) please? Thanks - Mike ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9

The particular document at issue is "Default Address Selection for IP version 6". If you want to raise a similar issue for IPv4, I'm sure that there is an appropriate WG list for that as well. At 12:39 PM 6/3/2008, Tony Finch wrote: >On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Michael StJohns

Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

Hi Joe - A quick disclaimer - although I was complicit in allowing this draft to be resurrected from 1992, I have had very little to do with it on this cycle. At 02:18 PM 10/2/2008, Joe Touch wrote: >First, I don't agree with this document's recommendation in section 7.3.1. > >TCP's current de

Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

At 03:30 PM 10/2/2008, Sam Hartman wrote: >You're proposing a huge complexity increase for the TCP stack in order >to get this covert channel protection. Hi Sam - The guys at Honeywell who did the fix for Multics back in '87 took about 2 days to do the fix. The complexity was pretty much limit

Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

Sorry - for both of these - the date was '83, not '87 Mike At 03:49 PM 10/2/2008, Michael StJohns wrote: >At 03:30 PM 10/2/2008, Sam Hartman wrote: >>You're proposing a huge complexity increase for the TCP stack in order >>to get this covert channel protectio

Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

At 07:01 PM 10/2/2008, Joe Touch wrote: >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> A second single level process at SECRET also attempts to do a passive >> open to the same port - but gets blocked because the port resource is >> being held by the TOP SECRET process. The SECRET process now has one bit >

Re: [secdir] Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

At 09:44 PM 10/20/2008, Nicolas Williams wrote: >So if I understand correctly then this document would have an >implementation of, say, NFSv4[0] over TCP[1] send TCP packets for the >same TCP connection with different labels, *and* ensure that each packet >contains parts of no more than one (exactl

Re: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

Hi Eric - I went to review the bidding on the TLS mailing list covering this period and it appears the archives at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/maillist.html only go back to the beginning of the year. Could yo

Re: Questions for those in favor of PR-Actions in general

At 06:57 AM 1/25/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Claim: The claim that all the good people will leave if the noise level is too great and if stubborn people with limited technical ability aren't banned. Question: If that claim is accurate, then since there were no PR-Actions for the first 2

Re: Making IETF happening in different regions

What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's what it works out to be At 07:27 PM 3/23/2006, Keith Moore wrote: We need to calculate the average cost of IETF hosted in all the continents, and that cost is t

Re: 66th IETF - Registration and Hotel Accommodations

At 03:15 PM 4/20/2006, Pete Resnick wrote: On 4/20/06 at 8:04 AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote: This is the first time in a long time I'm seriously considering *not* staying at the conference hotel. I'm not sure I see the point. One of the sites I checked for the conference hotel indicates only 4

Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control

I'm in complete agreement with Eliot (but that may be off point for the general topic).  In recent years the IETF has been struck by a particularly virulent form of back seat driver syndrome which has not only caused the community to believe they should second guess all possible decisions, but un

Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control

rocess. I'm at times minded of state control over newspapers in some of our less progressive countries. I'm pretty disgusted we've fallen to this point. At 03:37 AM 6/7/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Michael StJohns wrote: ... In the doc " It is the responsibility

Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control

At 02:31 PM 6/9/2006, Eliot Lear wrote: Mike, Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one occasion. I don't think we want that an

Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control

At 02:48 PM 6/9/2006, william(at)elan.net wrote: On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Eliot Lear wrote: Mike, Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more

Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control

At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote: Mike, I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes the complete set of facts here: I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts. The IAB document is consistent with the operational facts that have governed operatio

Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control

At 04:09 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote: Mike, Michael StJohns wrote: At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote: Mike, I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes the complete set of facts here: I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts

RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control

What a difference a single word can make.   I do agree you could read this in the manner in which you read it, but that would require completely ignoring the history of the RFC Editor project and the fact it has always been at ISI.  E.g. sometimes to understand what the law is you have to read th

RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control

What a difference a single word can make.   I do agree you could read this in the manner in which you read it, but that would require completely ignoring the history of the RFC Editor project and the fact it has always been at ISI.  E.g. sometimes to understand what the law is you have to read th

Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

One of the things missing from this years list of volunteers is their association. That's one of the inputs into the selection algorithm as the number of voting members from a particular association is limited to two. I'd ask that the Nomcom chair include this in the list of volunteers. Also

RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

I agree with Phillip - there is no harm here. If someone ineligible had happened to be selected, they would have been immediately disqualified and the next number on the list selected. That's why you actually ask for about 16 numbers to be output when you run the program which outputs the se

Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

At 04:39 AM 8/31/2006, Eliot Lear wrote: Michael StJohns wrote: > I agree with Phillip - there is no harm here. If someone ineligible > had happened to be selected, they would have been immediately > disqualified and the next number on the list selected. That's why you > actua

Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

To address Eliot's comment about the volunteer list - From Andrew's note that triggered all of this I see that he sent the list of the volunteers to the Secretariat. If we could have someone from the Secretariat provide a copy of that email independent of Andrew and verify it was submitted to

RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

Yup. More specifically, "A" has to happen before close of trading on the day you're getting your random numbers from. Unless I'm mistaken, I'm reading an overwhelming consensus NOT to reset from those posting on this list. Given that close of trading for Andrew's reset is today we're about to

Re: Does our passport need to be valid for 6 months to go to Prague?

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1099.html 3 months is the requirement. At 09:03 PM 2/17/2007, Radia Perlman wrote: There are some countries that require not just a *valid* passport, but one which won't expire for 6 months beyond when you visit a country. Is Prague in one of

Re: Does our passport need to be valid for 6 months to go to Prague?

At 06:29 PM 2/18/2007, Janet P Gunn wrote: My guidebook says 6 months. Feel free to argue with the US State Dept.. :-) Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: In support of symbolic references

Going back to the original problem, it might be more useful to use an xml diff program than a text diff program since that's where the changes will be made (and visible). The anchors and targets will stay stable. Maybe we can have this added to the tool set? At 23:45 4/5/2007, Bill Fenner

Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)

At 09:55 PM 12/4/2002 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The options seem to be: 1/ move WGs (back) to permanent areas: migrate the SUB-IP working groups to other IETF areas sometime soon, likely before next summer and close the SUB-IP area. Also, reconstitute the SUB-IP (and/o

Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR

At 01:21 AM 1/14/2003 +0100, Rokitansky, Carl-Herbert wrote: PS: As far as I can recall (having currently no access to any old documents) the IETF (or plans for it ?) was established in 1984 in a meeting in Malvern, UK at RSRE, in Sept (?) 1984 (could anyone please confirm), in which several of

Re: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR

At 09:01 PM 1/15/2003 -0500, Craig Partridge wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael StJ ohns writes: >We spent about 1/2 of the 2nd day on engineering issues and I would really >call that specific day the first IETF meeting. According to the IETF >website, that was January 17th, 1986 -

Critique vs Criticism - Plenary comments

Folks - I want to make a further comment about tonight's discussion about the site and site logistics. I'd like to ask all of you to listen to the discussion less as a bashing of the local host and the city and people of Vienna, and more as I think it was intended - a critique of the site and

Re: TLD Managers and Wildcard Ethics

Hi David - An interesting point, but probably one better made to ICANN. Try [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since its not a standards or protocol issue its probably not an IETF issue. Thanks - Mike At 11:59 9/16/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Verisign's recent inclusion of wildcard RR's for the .net an

Re: TLD Managers and Wildcard Ethics

Hi Keith  - At 12:56 9/16/2003, Keith Moore wrote: > An interesting point, but probably one better made to ICANN.  Try > [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Since its not a standards or protocol issue its > probably not an IETF issue. I disagree that this is not a protocol issue, as it certainly affects operati

Re: Visa for South Korea

*bleah*  http://travel.state.gov/skorea.html seems to agree with you.  "However, visas are required for all business visits." I think Steve is right that we need to get a read from our hosts. Mike At 12:07 PM 12/30/2003, Ken Hornstein wrote: >I attended a technical meeting in Seoul in the summe

Re: social event registration

Or for that matter, how many of you read closely enough to realize that Novell was collecting your information for direct marketing unless you a) read the small print and b) checked the "opt out" box? Later, Mike At 05:05 PM 12/7/2001 -0700, Michael Richardson wrote: > The final registrati

Re: What is at stake?

Umm... ok - 15 years ago. US DOD, Defense Communications Agency under an agreement with ARPA ran the Internet (all 20-50 networks of it) and its "core routing system". In fact the internet was actually called the "DOD Internet". It wasn't until around '87 that a non-government sponsored sys

Re: What is at stake?

e came up in 1986 (Dave Mills' fuzzballs). > >Vint > >At 10:24 PM 1/23/2002 -0800, Michael StJohns wrote: > >Umm... ok - 15 years ago. US DOD, Defense Communications Agency under > an agreement with ARPA ran the Internet (all 20-50 networks of it) and > its "c

Re: Imail

At this point you will have received something on the order of 50+ emails telling you NOT TO USE THE IETF MAILING LIST for non-IETF related purposes.  Specifically, questions about specific products are off topic.  This list is for the discussion of network protocol standards and their developmen

Re: Proprietary IP Protocol Type

Those of us who have been doing this for a while sometimes forget that there are things that are not obvious to those just joining us. Protocol number assignments are at http://www.iana.org/numbers.html.; Application procedures are at www.iana.org. IP Protocol numbers are at http://www.ian

Re: Global PKI on DNS?

Correction: A single global rooted PKI is a bad idea, a single global (in the namespace sense, not a single system) PKI database where we can look up certificates is a good idea. At 07:39 PM 6/9/2002 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > > I was wondering if the best system to build a global PKI woul

Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

At 08:53 AM 10/25/2012, Noel Chiappa wrote: >We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can change >any/all policy/procedures, right? Actually, that's my point here. Once upon a time, we did everything by group hum. Then we became a standards body with formal procedures and

Re: Just so I'm clear

At 03:46 AM 10/25/2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote: >... >> ... Nothing in the text suggests an >> unfettered right of creating new definitions of "vacant." > >You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com? > >1: not occupied by an incum

Re: Just so I'm clear

At 05:08 PM 10/25/2012, Melinda Shore wrote: >don't think that these are in any way analogous, since in each >case that you mentioned the individual who left was either incapacitated >or had pre-arranged an absence. If someone simply disappeared from >work without notice or comment I expect it wou

Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies]

I've read the draft. I think its the wrong approach, mainly because its focusing on the current problem rather than a new mechanism. In general, I know of 5 ways an elected or appointed position may become vacant: resignation, death, incapacity, recall or expulsion. We currently have mechanis

Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies]

At 11:02 AM 10/26/2012, Eliot Lear wrote: >On 10/26/12 4:29 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >> I'm using "expulsion" here the way its used in the US political system - a >> legislative body may choose to expel one of its members for various reasons. >> I pro

Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies]

At 11:39 AM 10/26/2012, John C Klensin wrote: >In principle, I have no problem with setting up a list of >repeated/ long-term non-feasance, non-appearance, or >non-responsiveness conditions that are treated as equivalent to >a more formal resignation unless the body of which that person >is a membe

Re: [IETF] Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

Per Olafur's email, I submitted my signature directly to him, along with my Nomcom eligibility status. I'm sure other's did as well, so you shouldn't take the absence of emails on this list as lack of support for the proposal. Mike At 06:25 AM 11/1/2012, Turchanyi Geza wrote: >Hello, > >I am

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

At 06:01 PM 11/1/2012, Bob Hinden wrote: >While the IAOC has not discussed this formally, I agree with you. The >situation did change when we were able to talk with Marshall. I assume at this point the IAOC would like to pursue the recall option? If not, please be very clear about it to t

I* Member Removal Process

e recall committee might be to choose members from the remaining list from the most recent nomcom selection using the same random selection process and same constraints on number members from the same organization/company. Also, stick the current nomcom "PAST chair" as the recall chair.

Re: The RFC Acknowledgement

At 11:04 PM 2/8/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >The problem is that most people don't complain or don't like to >complain, that is reality, they will leave such society easily. Are we talking about the same IETF? Seriously, this group as a whole does not tend to shy away from making their issues

Re: IETF Challenges

At 07:38 AM 3/3/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >Under the IETF role it is very easy of WG chairs to ignore >minority participants of large communities. I've come to the conclusion - possibly wrong - that you're lacking some basic understanding in the operational model of the IETF. Unlike most o

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

At 08:50 AM 3/6/2013, Jari Arkko wrote: >I didn't want to imply that we necessarily couple the actions we take. > >I agree of course that right now we have an issue to solve. I agree that we >should do whatever to complete the current process, and that waiting for a >reorganisation would be a b

RE: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications

At 05:27 PM 3/7/2013, Eric Gray wrote: >In addition to trying to guess what the "talent-set" requirement is for a >complete slate, the NomCom >also has to try to figure out balance on a lot of different dimensions. >Company-mix, representation >by regions, extra skills and/or tools each AD might

RE: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications

hat this shared delusion has caused much additional work with out much additional benefit. Mike > >-- >Eric > >From: Michael StJohns [mailto:mstjo...@comcast.net] >Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:06 PM >To: Eric Gray; ietf@ietf.org >Subject: RE: Nomcom is responsible fo

RE: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications

ng precise rules for how to define "affiliation", the > IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the > participants to make the process work. > >From: Michael StJohns [mailto:mstjo...@comcast.net] >Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:57 PM >To: Eric Gray

Re: What anyone can read about recent Nomcoms

In addition, check the plenary section of the proceedings for each March meeting since about 2004. There are at least a few slides Bout the NOMCOM and sometimes process issues. Mike Sent from my iPad On Mar 8, 2013, at 17:23, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > I posted a couple of links to detailed N

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

I'm not sure I have enough data to evaluate the comments in this letter. I don't disagree with the general goal "diversity is good". I do believe that the proposed actions are not realistic in that they would tend to make the Nomcom process even more moribund. I will note that Appendix A sugg

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

At 07:56 AM 3/12/2013, Dan Harkins wrote: >While these studies are interesting and thought provoking, I think it is >wrong, and very dangerous, to use these studies to justify blanket >statements about intelligence, group or otherwise. I'm laughing a bit about this thread. For example, there's al

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

At 11:19 AM 3/12/2013, Mary Barnes wrote: >On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Michael StJohns wrote: >> At 07:56 AM 3/12/2013, Dan Harkins wrote: >>>While these studies are interesting and thought provoking, I think it is >>>wrong, and very dangerous, to use these

Re: Consensus on the responsibility for qualifications? (Was: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications)

At 02:27 PM 3/13/2013, Dave Crocker wrote: >So I suggest: > > 2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its > determination of the requirements for the job, synthesized > from the desires expressed by the IAB, IESG or IAOC (as > appropriate), desires expre

Re: Consensus on the responsibility for qualifications? (Was: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications)

At 02:57 PM 3/13/2013, Scott Brim wrote: >On 03/13/13 14:51, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote: >> At 02:27 PM 3/13/2013, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> So I suggest: >>> >>> 2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its >>>

Re: Getting rid of the dot (was: Mentoring)

At 10:08 AM 3/19/2013, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:22:46AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: >> >> > "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Haas writes: >> Jeffrey> Such an exercise would probably generate a lot less >> Jeffrey> controversy than my unsanctioned badge experiment. >>

Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T

The IETF and various members occasionally break out in back seat driver's syndrome. It's disappointing. We need to remember that we are organized more as a republic than a democracy. We select various folks through the Nomcom process to make decisions on various things. E.g.. the IESG for st

Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T

At 10:02 AM 3/28/2013, John C Klensin wrote: > For me, it seems especially odd when >compared to the liaison position to the ICANN Board. Both are >very important to the IETF community. Both involve >organizations with which the IETF has a complicated and >multidimensional relationship. Both i

Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T

At 01:14 AM 3/29/2013, David Kessens wrote: >Mike, > >On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:03:25PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: >> >> The process for selecting and appointing liaisons is the purview of the >> IAB and not currently subject to external review - and I don'

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

At 11:11 AM 4/11/2013, Ray Pelletier wrote: >All > >The IETF is concerned about diversity. As good engineers, we would like >to attempt to measure diversity while working on addressing and increasing >it. To that end, we are considering adding some possibly sensitive >questions to the registratio

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

At 12:15 PM 4/13/2013, John C Klensin wrote: >--On Friday, April 12, 2013 23:37 -0400 Andrew Sullivan > wrote: > >> The only lesson I really learned from that experience is that >> it is incredibly hard for women[1] to be treated as adult >> colleagues in an environment that acts overwhelmingly a

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

At 11:43 AM 4/18/2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >Indeed. Ideally, though, we need a statistician to look at the >historical ratios (e.g. M/F ratios) in the attendee lists vs the >I* membership, to see whether there is a statistically significant >bias in the selection process over the years. > >

Re: last call comments for draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06

At 09:56 AM 4/22/2013, Sam Hartman wrote: >> "RJ" == RJ Atkinson writes: > > >RJ> I oppose Eliot's proposed edits on grounds that they would >RJ> reduce the clarity of the specification and also would reduce >RJ> IETF and WG consensus about this specification. > >Ran, I just check

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

At 08:53 PM 4/28/2013, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >The question that people are asking is why the diversity of the IETF >leadership doesn't reflect the diversity of _the IETF_. Let's consider for a moment that this may not actually be the correct question. Instead, consider "Why the diversity

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

At 01:38 PM 4/29/2013, Ted Lemon wrote: >On Apr 29, 2013, at 1:08 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >> If raising awareness and sensitivity >> isn't enough to get people to think about and make decisions >> differently > >Statistical analysis shows that even when peoples' awareness is raised, biases >co

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

At 01:34 AM 4/29/2013, Dave Crocker wrote: >On 4/28/2013 9:05 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >>Let's consider for a moment that this may not actually be the correct >>question. Instead, consider "Why the diversity of the IETF leadership >>doesn't reflect the

  1   2   >