model by the Industry, in a single place where they can be managed later.
Todd Glassey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
hey are always
current. This also brings into play that the IETF doesn't have any way of
really terminating something that it published that needed to be withdrawn
from circulation for whatever reason.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTE
L2,
The IETF's policy here has a couple of problems I think - and that is that
it limits the number of parties that can claim control over a document and
in doing so limits the representation of legal ownership or rights to the
filing.
This is a very bad thing, since each of those authors has lega
Unfortunately the genesis of some IP is not that easily dealt with - In fact
EACH and EVERY contributor must be named, since their rights to the core
genesis are something that are either defined in an agreement or somethign
for resolution before a trier of fact in some form.
Todd
- Original
the Mail List Hostroy's are
accurate and that the Mail Server's were not messed with to impact any
individuals participation in the list profess are today essentially
non-existant and are required in most all proofing models currently accepted.
Todd Glassey
-Original Message-
Jabber Logs are part of NOTEWELL and if they are not maintaned then NOTEWELL is
a bigger problem than it already is. Sorry... if NOTEWELL is put in place to
capture participation - then ***all*** participation must be captured and
available to anyone reviewing any initiative...
Todd Glassey
e a number of holes in
each control process such that they are neither reliable or accountable for
anything below them. This is one of the real issues moving forward and needs to
be corrected.
Todd Glassey as an Auditor
> Therefore, in my opinion, it is required
>for the IESG to consider
ut that ther is no comprehensive model for evaluating how well the IETF
met its standards and whether it caused damage to others in the process.
Todd Glassey as an Auditor.
-Original Message-
>From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jul 18, 2006 5:18 AM
>To:
Elliot -
-Original Message-
>From: Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jul 18, 2006 5:59 AM
>To: David Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: ietf@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Minutes and jabber logs
>
>
>As someone who has both done a lot of jabber scribing and is also a WG
>chair and has also r
pe
of liability that operating an IETF site will carry with it as an official
mirror.
The same liability extends to those that are operating the IETF's mailing
lists as well as any number of other fiduciary liabilities which also need
to be
address.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
tters in the IETF.
Todd Glassey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
If you specify it then the spec will need a formal SLA too.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bill Fenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bob Braden" <[EMAIL PROTECT
ity of the IETF's
processes...
Interesting statement eh? - Think of the ramifications because they are
pretty sweeping. True also - especially the part about the maintenance of
the evidence process.
IPR didn't want to hear about this - I am betting you don't either b
Title: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
What may be more interesting Phillip is the Theofel
v Farey Jones ruling out of the 9th Circuit since it sets real pain for 'taking
an electronic service away from someone who is dependant on it'... Todd
Glassey
- Origin
ecourse against those
potentially found to be responsible who are part of the IETF and IESG
framework.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Sam Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pete Resnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <[EMAIL
OK Sam -
What do you do after the ISOC refuses to hear an appeal? What oversight is
there? Arbitration? Court? This is a serious question since there is no
reason for the ISOC BOT to actually consent to hear any specific appeal and
by the writing of their own Articles of Incorporation or BOT Action
- Original Message -
From: "Pete Resnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Thomas Narten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sam Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
> On 7/19/06 at 9:02 A
there doesn't work.
The point is that the model that is documented here specifies things that
are not in place and that makes the document 'ineffectual' in a contract
sense.
- Original Message -
From: "Theodore Tso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd g
Jeffery
- Original Message -
From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sam Hartman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Pete Resnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <
Jeff - thanks for insulting me so on the list - makes it easier to point out
how wrong you are... lets talk about the workflow and constraints of the
appeal process 6.5.1 as modulated by 6.5.4 is what we are talking about.
- Original Message -
From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ason of vetting those IP's - not those IP's as
modified by the Editors... that's why the Editors need an arms length from the
process.
Todd
-Original Message-
>From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jul 21, 2006 9:03 AM
>To: Marcus Leech <[EMAIL PROTECT
Elliot -
Then you leave it up to the party providing the service and open the IETF to
all kinds of trouble... By the way Elliot do you think your sponsor, Cisco
and their Legal department would let Cisco negotiate a contract like that?
Just curious
But hey - Maybe - try something like this:
Dave -
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "IETF Discussion"
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: netwrk stuff
>
>
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > At 12:06 AM -0700 7/21/06, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> By way of pro
Doug - you said something really important here about advancing the IETF's
collaborative processes by inducting them atop a groupware solution.
> Meanwhile, there is a lot of good work going on with other VCS
> platforms that might be even better. (And don't even get me started on how
> useful i
who is responsible for the Stakeholder Disclosure and how is it
accomplished and documented?
Todd Glassey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Eliot - BTW
What's the difference between an RFP and an RFC by the way? - don't both
require some review process for the "Request for" part of it?
Just asking as its a semantics issue .
T
- Original Message -
From: "Eliot Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A web based submission model would be better - it could actually step the
submitter through the template sections and give them guidance on the text.
Hell readability tools are available from any of the online library tool
sources so this is not an issue either.
The millstone here is that the IETF
-Original Message-
>From: Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jul 24, 2006 7:24 AM
>To: todd glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: IETF Discussion
>Subject: Re: netwrk stuff
>
>On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 06:51 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
>
>> The qu
Joel... Wow - what can U say... This is an issue because of the gross
incompetence of an entity who is set up to propagate problems so that it will
have something to work on... I bet the management of the IETF finds that
comment as offensive as I find their incompetence in these matters.
The
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Brian E Carpenter'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: Meetings in other regions
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > ...
> > Outreach is important, and welcoming ne
ed? US? Virginia? California? who's ???
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Dean Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Eliot Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Thomas Narten"
<[EMAIL PROTECTE
Say Gary - there is usually also a retention requirement for the actual
logs - not the transcribed ones. This is MUCH more complex than it seems.
There is a requirement to be able to prove the integrity of any process and
that means demonstrable evidence of everything. I brought this up about two
Ahahahahahahaha - its the worst contract solicitation I have ever seen...
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "IETF Administrative Director" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "IETF Announcement list"
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
Hi there Audit Fans - Lets look at NoteWell and figure out how it interacts
with Corporate Governance and Compliance Policies...
let me make a couple of observations:
NOTEWELL http://www.ietf.org/NOTEWELL.html has some hidden requirements that
make it broken. Let me illustrate...
1) All the
- Original Message -
From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Cc: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Flaw in the NOTEWell System makes NO
John it may be that RFC Editor is a role description rather than a Term or
Art or controlled function or service mark. If this is true, then they the
IETF could easily seek a new candidate to serve as the Editor of RFC's.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
once.
So how does one do that?
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'todd glassey'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:33 PM
Subject: RE: Flaw in the NOTEWell System makes NOTEWELL NOTWELL
Gee Jeffery A.
> >>
> >>> Hi there Audit Fans - Lets look at NoteWell and figure out how it
> >>> interacts with Corporate Governance and Compliance Policies...
> >> First of all, you keep using the word "NOTEWELL" as if it is the name
of
> >> something. Perhaps a policy, or a system, or a proces
ell System makes NOTEWELL NOTWELL
> todd glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Gee Jeffery A.
>
> >> Universities provide e-mail services to their students, staff, faculty,
> >> alumni, and frequently guests.
>
> > until November of last year I was [EMA
ges of the submitters it is very
difficult to always tell what is intended - especially when the Editor's try
and fix bad writing - they may in fact alter the alg's without intent. To
prevent this detailed use and protocol transaction flow models are needed.
Todd Glassey
- Original
In making it easier to follow this obtuse and convoluted solicitation
document, the other thing is that the HISTORY section needs to go - go
elsewhere - and I personally don't ever need to see it again in the RFP
itself.
The RFP is a formal solicitation for participation or services - it is step
o
So someone submits something to the IETF for standardization that is
patented or that they intend to patent. But in the process of submitting the
work-product to the IETF for publication it is altered by the editor's both
in form and in functionality. Now, the patent examiner cant track the IETF's
Phillip - All -
the inclusion of critical Use Guidelines are critical to creating real
standards as opposed to general purpose recommendations. The other side of
the coin is in including value - and the Trust wants its IP to be worth as
much as possible. That said it is totally reasonable to requir
No Allison - contracts are not what happens when people deal in bad faith -
court battles are. Contracts are what happen when two or more parties want
the formal relationship between them defined and their roles and
responsibilities too.
More inline
- Original Message -
From: "Allison Ma
Just out of curiosity - does anyone anticipate adding RSS feeds?
T.
- Original Message -
From: "Ted Hardie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jeffrey Hutzelman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Allison Mankin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF Administrative
Director" <[EMAIL P
So let me ask the obvious thing... why is the RFP content being voted on?
This is a business decision in regard to services and process. Why is any of
it open to review inside the IETF?
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ted Hardie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Nice Andy... bravo!
T
-Original Message-
>From: Andy Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jul 26, 2006 8:23 PM
>To: todd glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Jeffrey Hutzelman <
JCK
Lets ask Jorge if the Final RFP is different from interim RFP's then dont all
parties have to be given proper review and response time to the final version?
lest they recieve less access or are not favorites in the bidding-contract
acquisition process?
I recall this one from Basic Contracts
le that without proper declaration of the
basic law constraining the contract that there is no contract whether the
pieces of what contracts are made up are created or not.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "Dean Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey"
were all laid out... including the
test, interoperability and otherwise technologies
would the IESG protect this initiative and allow it to be started and
completed? This is a totally reasonable question about the IESG and what it
needs to control.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
he IETF and the rest of us from each other's
shenanigans..
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dean Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
&g
So Thomas - Is this a NOT SO SUBTLE form of harassment?.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Narten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 5:56 AM
Subject: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
> Total of 122 messages in the last 7 day
-Original Message-
>>
>> Well, first let me say that ADs who sponsor documents are
>> already concerned about perceived conflict of interest,
Which is a good thing since there is no Hold-Harmless Agreement anywhere - and
apparently this makes the AD's civilly liable for damages the
Try the OpenSS7 list and archive... as to the system its no different than any
paired peer architecture - Beowulf or like.
T.
-Original Message-
>From: Satya Prasad Nemana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Aug 3, 2006 6:11 AM
>To: ietf@ietf.org
>Subject: Clustered Signaling Gateways specificati
Why is this true - I am not saying its not but its an assertion that is
undocumented and unsupported. So how does this work - why would the series be
less valuable and because of what - this is a key question in establishing a
value propisition for the IETF's wares.
T
-Original Message
Err uh Keith - No...
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Moore"
To: "Joe Touch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 10:00
God I HATE Microsoft tools -
- Original Message -
From: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jefsey Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: administrative question on RFC publications
on.
Remember this is about participation.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "Randy Presuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: administrative question on RFC publications
> Hi -
>
> > From: "todd glassey" &l
usual instances in various
WG's where cross-collaboration between other externals and the WG occurred
on a project level; but at the organizational and more importantly the
brand-recognition level - this IETF has nothing really implemented to
address these needs.
Ah well...
todd glassey
--
The problem is Brian - that there is this underlying assumption with the
entire IETF service model that says that people are responsible for
maintaining their own alignment with IETF standards - and so at some point
they decide they have spent enough and they stop spending to participate.
Personall
IETF go
if not [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'John C Klensin'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "
consult
your own Counsel to properly understand and determine if these risks
eliminate your participation in the program.
Thanks for your interest in the IETF's Publishing Operations RFP
By the way - IMH
FYI - we need to add a receipt tacking method to the document publishing
process so that the rights that are being granted back to the submitter are
documented somewhere.
Think about this - how do you know what rights you got back from a
submission? This is important since the IETF's contracts are
cess that cannot possibly
control IP once published. There is no effective difference between publishing
wiht the IETF and walking into a crowd of beggars with a bag of pennies.
Todd Glassey
-Original Message-
>From: Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Aug 16, 2006
Harald - you sure you are not talking about IETF Mail Servers?
Todd
-Original Message-
>From: Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Aug 16, 2006 12:20 AM
>To: Andrew Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: ietf@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the
Hey Brian - what say - I am no longer the top poster eh?
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael StJohns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'IETF-Discussion'" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: Now there seems t
ed in the original pick who now loses their
potential seat to the process.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "James Galvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'IETF-Discussion'"
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be
A restart that selected other candidates would not be unbiased.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "James Galvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'IETF-Discussion'"
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006
Elliot -
What about those that may not be in the selection pool this time around -
how fair would that be to them?
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Eliot Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael StJohns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "IETF-Discussio
The problem is demonstrative of the real issues with the IETF's processes
and that they are designed by people who particularly don't plan for
contingency - its a true testament to the Arrogance of the Technical Mind in
screaming loudly all the way to the Gallows that it mailed the check.
The poin
Phillip congrats - re-votes are dependant on a fully defined election
process with oversight and proper what-if contingencies that are pre-planned
and not fixed in an ad-hoc manner.
- Original Message -
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECT
Yaakov - Or to rerun it such that it produces different data.
This is about the Abuse at the Top... of the IETF. The IETF's processes MUST
be analyzed by Auditor's and not Philosophers and although many in this
group wont like that well - tough - that's the way it is...
Todd
- Original Messag
Technology is not the answer -
but rather a reliable and complete organizational process model is.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: IESG response and questions to the nor
IETF's Boiler plate about the Federal
Trade Commission who does arbitrate matters for trade issue disputes which
any Standards Developments would be constrained by...
Any answers?
Todd Glassey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.iet
initiatives approved by the sitting management
ever get undertaken.
Its time for some reform.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From:
Hallam-Baker,
Phillip
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 ; IETF-Discussion
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 7:24
PM
Subject: RE: Now
iness plan. I want to see exactly what the Trust is responsible for and
how its to be measured,
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Fenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "IETF-Discussion" <>
Sent: Monday,
YES
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Bill Fenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there se
ts pretty funny. The NOMCOM process is
neither fair nor reasonable in a day and age where remote appearances are OK
for most any and all meetings.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Eliot - the problem quite simply is that the IESG needs to be disbanded. It
serves no other purpose than to complicate the creation and acceptable
vetting models for Internet Standards and as such really needs to be a thing
of the past - The standards process is easily updated to remove the IESG
fr
ty is what it is.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:01 AM
Subject: RE: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be lackof
communicaiton here...
> >
is a cafeteria style standardization process
where the IETF nor IESG are responsible for the actual promotion of
proposed standard to standard status ...
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PRO
Kieth - abusive language for the purpose of being abusive is prohibited on
these lists. Take this as a formal complaint to the Chair over this action.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Moore"
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: &quo
l are what need to go away - The IETF needs
to be a place where EVERY VOICE is heard and counted.
Todd Glassey.
- Original Message -
From: "Stewart Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Noel Chiappa" <[E
are. But the IESG sure
isn't.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stewart Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTEC
Yes Keith even the incompetent get to speak here. And that includes you too.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Moore"
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Accountability through Auditability is the watchphrase... no closed
processes - no one operates in a vacuum - no more secrets. Everyone votes
and everyone plays... that is the way its supposed to be right?
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[E
Ned Eliot - why fix the process??? - lets just turn the IETF into a
democracy and every member gets a vote.and that way the process isn't
needed.
ISOC members should probably also get to vote eh?
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Eliot Lear" <[EMAIL PRO
trary
decisions as to where and when things happen or if they happen in any
approved initiative.
In fact - Anywhere where there is a single thread of control in the
Standards process, those threads MUST happen entirely in the open to be
transparent and fair for all.. and usually the bette
Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections rather than the
technological version of the Electoral College its tried to put in place
with NOMCOM
Todd
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
> Dave Crocker wrote:
> ...
>
> > First you focused on "ambiguity", when that seems pretty cl
- Original Message -
From: "Theodore Tso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: C
11, 2006 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than
some
> > From: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections
>
> Because the members are generally happy with the sys
ts in the IETF. So there is essentially
no formal disclosure to anyone that the IETF's rules and processes and the
contract between it and the participants has been changed.
More inline below.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EM
Cool Rob - how about we ask ALL of the other members of all of the other
WG's since these rules and processes effect them.
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "Noel Chiappa&qu
Bill
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than
some
> On Mon, Sep 11,
Thats how you deal with people you disagree with I that was a fascist model
of operations Pekka?
todd
- Original Message -
From: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: Todd Glassey ban -- pretty please?
> While
1, 2006 10:23 AM
Subject: Constant flux (was: Why cant the IETF embrace an open
ElectionProcess [...])
> todd glassey wrote:
>
> > was this existence of the IPR or IETF WG disclosed to anyone
>
> There is no "IETF WG", this is the general list of the general
> area.
Spencer
- Original Message -
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:08 AM
Subject: Please make the madness stop (was: a whole bunch of flames)
> Hoping against hope that this might be the last post in the thread, but
one
> never knows...
>
>
I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson.
>
> Thanks
>
> --Dean
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
> > > From: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open el
Thanks Dean -
Which brings up the issues of liability and agency... Especially since there
is no HOLD HARMLESS component of the Boilerplate.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "Dean Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Theodore Tso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
1 - 100 of 266 matches
Mail list logo
