Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

2008-04-11 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 2008-04-11 23:40, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > I too like Ted's comments. > > If the job is really to preside over the Trust meetings, the title > "convener" might be useful; if the job is to make sure Trust work gets > followed up, call it an "executive director". > > But I can live with the cu

Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

2008-04-11 Thread Fred Baker
A thought... your list below eliminates five out of the ten of the IAOC. The remaining folks include the IAOC secretary (whom I would suggest should also be ineligible), a member selected by the IETF nomcom, the member selected by the IESG, and the member selected by the IAB. I would sugges

Re: Last Call: draft-snell-atompub-bidi (Atom Bidirectional Attribute) to Experimental RFC

2008-04-11 Thread Frank Ellermann
James M Snell wrote: > If another version of the draft is needed based on > last-call comments, I can make the name change then. Leave it alone, please. Various tools have problems with tracking changed names. Changing the name to "RFC " at some point in time is IMO good enough. I don't f

Re: Last Call: draft-snell-atompub-bidi (Atom Bidirectional Attribute) to Experimental RFC

2008-04-11 Thread James M Snell
The "atompub" was originally in reference to the Atompub Working Group. Now that the WG is closed, it probably would make sense to change this to just atom. If another version of the draft is needed based on last-call comments, I can make the name change then. - James Tim Bray wrote: > On F

Re: Last Call: draft-snell-atompub-bidi (Atom Bidirectional Attribute) to Experimental RFC

2008-04-11 Thread Tim Bray
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:03 PM, The IESG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > > - 'Atom Bidirectional Attribute ' > as an Experimental RFC The name of this draft is a little misleading. Shouldn't

Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

2008-04-11 Thread Stephan Wenger
Something rather obvious. Stephan On 4/11/08 7:32 AM, "Marshall Eubanks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2. The Trustees shall select one Trustee to serve as the Chair of >> the Trust. >> >> a. The following Trustees are not eligible to serve as IETF Chair:

Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

2008-04-11 Thread Marshall Eubanks
Dear Ray; I support these changes. I have one nit. On Apr 10, 2008, at 9:21 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote: > The Trustees have considered the comments from the list and propose > the following amended revisions to the Trust Administrative > Procedures. The Trustees propose to take action at its

gen-art review of draft-ietf-rserpool-policies-08.txt

2008-04-11 Thread Elwyn Davies
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see _http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-rse

IETF Registration cancellations (was: Re: Dublin Registration Open!

2008-04-11 Thread John C Klensin
--On Thursday, 10 April, 2008 20:45 -0400 Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The correct contract conditions for reservations at Citywest > are located here: http://www.citywesthotel.com/site/ietf.aspx > > Specifically: > All Reservations are transferable. > > Cancellation: Individuals c

Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

2008-04-11 Thread Harald Alvestrand
I too like Ted's comments. If the job is really to preside over the Trust meetings, the title "convener" might be useful; if the job is to make sure Trust work gets followed up, call it an "executive director". But I can live with the current proposal (although dropping #12 entirely would make

Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

2008-04-11 Thread John C Klensin
Ray, While I could live with this, I agree, strongly, with Ted. The character and volume of comments, including organized outside interventions, in the IPR discussions of the last year or two, should be sufficient to convince everyone how significant IPR matters can get. If the Trust is the hol