EKR wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Klensin suggested the following text for the first sentence, and
Scott Bradner supported the idea:
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions
in-house should be
UNICEF has just announced the creation of Warning Center in the Indian
Ocean; it will be ready in 2006. The announcement has been made in
Mauritius(where I live), small island in the Indian Ocean, where the
conference on SIDS (Small Islands Developing States) is currently being held
in the
Hi Baree,
We do have a conference in Reunion Island on Networking and Emergency
Services and Disaster Recovery, April 17-21, 2005.
See
http://www.iaria.org/conferences/AICED/AICED2005/GeneralInformation/GeneralInformation.html
We do have a panel on April 21 afternoon on this very concrete
On reviewing #725 on appealing decisions, and the crosslinked #720 on IAD
autonomy, I sense a disquiet in the community.
On the one hand, we recognize that a well functioning IAD and IAOC needs to
be allowed to run the show without a thousand people trying to put their
hands on the tiller.
On
I believe #739 is a matter that requires ISOC to form an opinion - it is
not something that the IETF needs to come to consensus about, and it should
not affect the text of the BCP.
As Brian Carpenter said:
I'm not saying a bylaw change would be a bad thing, in due time.
But ISOC can get a Board
I believe that I now have messages out with suggested resolutions for all
19 open issues on the BCP document. In almost all cases, these messages
contain text for proposed edits to the document.
If I don't hear violent objections, I'll ask the editors to prepare a new
draft based on those
I can't promise I'm interpreting the discussion correctly, but my
understanding is that our bias is not in favor of outsourcing, but
against empire-building and bloat. As long as we say zero-based, so
that we're giving the right clues about not spending lots of money in
ways that create the
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Does this seem like a reasonable point on the various scales of concern?
I think so.
--Jari
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I think this is acceptable given that we *also* have a recall
procedure. In other words, if the IAOC isn't responsive
to a clear message from a review that you screwed up, then
we'd better make sure that a recall is initiated.
Brian
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
On reviewing #725 on appealing
So - Scott, can you confirm that you think quorum rules should be in the
BCP? Rob, can you confirm that you think they should not be?
imo - if rules for voting are in the document then quorum rules should be
but I'm fine with the idea that the document say
1/ general method is
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The section on donations in version -03 says (skipping the editors' notes):
5.3 Designated Donations, Monetary and In-Kind
Donations are an essential component of funding. The IASA undertakes
no direct fund-raising activities. This establishes a practice of
harald proposes:
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made
the decision. It is up to that body to decide to
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Brian, John, Avri and Spencer: Can you state if you have an opinion
about whether or not the quorum rules should be in the document or not?
Let's get this point settled before we dig into what the quorum rules
should be - if they don't go into the BCP, the whole text of
Harald,
So the IAD and IAOC don't have to respond to individual requests for
review unless IAB or IESG make the request on behalf of an individual,
but we all get to see requests and responses and make our own NOMCOM
inputs?
Spencer
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a
--On torsdag, januar 13, 2005 08:13:26 -0500 Scott Bradner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
harald proposes:
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed
I think you have to explain more why you are worried before I'm able to
share them.
I have in detail in the past
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I agree.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject:Re: Consensus search: #725 3.4b Appealing decisions
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 01/13/2005 3:08 pm
I think this is acceptable given that we *also* have a recall
procedure. In other words, if the IAOC isn't
--On torsdag, januar 13, 2005 07:20:22 -0600 Spencer Dawkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald,
So the IAD and IAOC don't have to respond to individual requests for
review unless IAB or IESG make the request on behalf of an individual,
but we all get to see requests and responses and make our own
-On torsdag, januar 13, 2005 07:20:22 -0600 Spencer Dawkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald,
So the IAD and IAOC don't have to respond to individual requests for
review unless IAB or IESG make the request on behalf of an individual,
but we all get to see requests and responses and
Dear Fred and Brian,
Your draft is about the way to warn people of a local danger (like the
Tsunami). The AFRAC project may bring some elements in addition to the
examples you quote in appendix. We will document them in a later Draft once
we have morre practical experience. I copy Area
--On Thursday, 13 January, 2005 13:27 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that should be enough - the IAD and IAOC can route all
frivolous requests to /dev/null; the decision of the IESG to
not ask the IAOC for a review is an IESG action that can be
handled in the
--On Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 08:22 -0800 EKR ekr@rtfm.com
wrote:
Sorry to be difficult, but no.
I'd like people to explain why they think that the BCP should
impose a bias towards outsourcing as opposed towards doing
things in the most efficient way possible.
Personally, I've never
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EKR wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Klensin suggested the following text for the first sentence, and
Scott Bradner supported the idea:
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced. Decisions to
--On Thursday, 13 January, 2005 13:38 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that I now have messages out with suggested
resolutions for all 19 open issues on the BCP document. In
almost all cases, these messages contain text for proposed
edits to the document.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
Please find below an updated version of the IAD job announcement. This
is based on the feedback we received here on the list, as well as on
feedback received from a professional. The comment period this time
will be until Sunday
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EKR wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Klensin suggested the following text for the first sentence, and
Scott Bradner supported the idea:
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced.
Hi,
Either I don't understand it or I don't agree. I allow that I don't
understand it.
In the first paragraph it seem like anyone can ask for a decision to be
reviewed.
In subsequent paragraphs it appears that anyone is limited to IAOC, IAB
and IESG members because no one is required to
--On Thursday, 13 January, 2005 12:06 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Either I don't understand it or I don't agree. I allow that I
don't understand it.
Since the model is partially my fault, let me try to explain.
In the first paragraph it seem like anyone can ask for a
decision
--On Thursday, 13 January, 2005 17:42 +0100 Wijnen, Bert
(Bert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We definitely do want to discourage egregious bloat of direct
staff posts, but we also want to discourage egregious bloat
at the contractors we outsource to. I'm not sure why people
think there is more
--On torsdag, januar 13, 2005 10:37:22 -0500 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*footnote: I think the document may be confusing (I hope not
confused, and I trust it isn't deliberate) as to whether all of
these pointers to outsourcing imply
-- hire an organization, with its own
Hi,
Thanks for the response.
I don't know whether I am in a severe minority on this particular
position, and hope that my arguments do not come across as a DOS
attack. At a certain point I will accept that rough consensus has
passed this concern by.
To start, I must admit I have trouble
On 1/13/05 at 1:34 PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I believe #739 is a matter that requires ISOC to form an opinion
I agree; ISOC must suggest the mechanism by which they will agree to
this partnership.
it is not something that the IETF needs to come to consensus about,
and it should
John makes a very good point. I prefer to think of these types of
documents as a Request for Information (RFI), which is a common
contracting mechanism. It allows vendors to make general presentations
about their capabilities, and that allows the host institution to
put together a short list of
--On torsdag, januar 13, 2005 10:37:22 -0500 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*footnote: I think the document may be confusing (I hope not
confused, and I trust it isn't deliberate) as to whether all of
these pointers to outsourcing imply
-- hire an organization, with its
Whether you call it RFP or RFI (sorry I don't do these things, so
I may be mis-using terminology), the result is (I think) that
if bidder A says they can do it with 2, Bidder B with 5 and Bidder C
with 15 people, then I Think one would find the number for C to
be bloated (for whatever reasons).
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 02:11:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
To start, I must admit I have trouble equating an individual or
community's disagreement with a decision to a DOS attack, though I do
know how disconcerting and distracting an insistent complaint can be.
I just don't see
Hello All:
I want to implement the diffserv MIB for an SNMP
agent. Does anybody know of any implementation.
OR is there any documentation/guide on how to do it ?
Thank you very much!
-manik
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! -
--On 13. januar 2005 13:23 -0600 Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I don't think there was any disagreement (including from Brian)
that text needed to be added of the form:
This BCP will take effect upon adoption of the BCP by the IESG and the
concurrent insert thing that ISOC does
It seems that we are now more-or-less agreed that less is more when it
comes to quorum, majority rules and so on - here's a proposed minimum
version of what is in section 3.4:
3.4 IAOC Decision Making
The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity
cannot be achieved,
On my re-reading of the thread, I think:
. you are right that there wasn't substantive disagreement on
the inclusion of the text:
This BCP will take effect upon adoption of the BCP by the IESG and the
concurrent insert thing that ISOC does which codifies in some
interesting way the
Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/13/05 at 1:34 PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
As Brian Carpenter said:
I'm not saying a bylaw change would be a bad thing, in due
time. But ISOC can get a Board motion through in about 2 weeks,
whereas a bylaw change takes several months.
FYI:
The ISOC bylaws are at
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/bylaws.shtml
The ISOC articles of incorporation are at
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/incorp.shtml
They are very interesting reading, not only for what they contain, but for
what they do not contain.
Harald,
Close, but no. You don't want to say some decisions may be
made by voting since it leaves a loose end about how that
decision is made. You might say any of
...the IAOC may, by consensus, conclude that it should
make a particular decision by voting or
Hi Harald,
One comment to this, inline.
At 8:42 PM +0100 1/13/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 13. januar 2005 13:23 -0600 Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I don't think there was any disagreement (including from Brian)
that text needed to be added of the form:
This
On 1/13/05 at 5:25 PM -0500, Leslie Daigle wrote:
. but I disagree that there was considerable support for filling
the with by-law changes in ISOC.
I think you're right that there wasn't overt support for by-law
changes. On the other hand, I think there was at least some group of
folks
Harald writes:
It seems that we are now more-or-less agreed that less is more when it
comes to quorum, majority rules and so on - here's a proposed minimum
version of what is in section 3.4:
3.4 IAOC Decision Making
The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If
Well,
Pete Resnick wrote:
That said, let me offer a few thoughts on why I specifically don't
think a by-law change is what you want. The by-laws deal primarily in
the mechanics of ISOCs structural implementation:
Not so of Article VI, sections 2 5, which seem somewhat akin (though
less
Hi
I had a question regarding association mapping for
M2PA. Can some one give me more information as to what
information needs to be maintained to perform the SLC
to association mapping in the M2PA layer?
Regards
Haritha
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Pete,
I still think this is misdirected energy.
But, in the interest of finding a reasonable compromise and
moving on, let me make a suggestion:
(1) We let the current text and resolution style stand,
so that bylaw changes don't become a gating factor [note
1 below].
--On Thursday, 13 January, 2005 21:21 +0100 Wijnen, Bert
(Bert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether you call it RFP or RFI (sorry I don't do these things,
so I may be mis-using terminology), the result is (I think)
that if bidder A says they can do it with 2, Bidder B with 5
and Bidder C with
To be clear: I think that for insert thing that ISOC does, we
should have what is currently in the BCP:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The procedures in this document shall become operational immediately
after this document has been approved by the process defined in BCP 9
Harald further suggests:
3.4 IAOC Decision Making
The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity
cannot be achieved, some decisions may be made by voting.
The IAOC decides the details about its decision-making
rules, including its rules for quorum, conflict
note that in the resolutions that accepted the IETF process BCPs
(2026 for example) also had text that said that the ISOC aggreed to
undertake the role described in the document for the ISOC
i.e. I would expect that both would be in a single motion
Scott
At Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:22:58 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
So - Scott, can you confirm that you think quorum rules should be in the
BCP? Rob, can you confirm that you think they should not be?
hat editor=off just-another-bozo=on
Sorry, I had missed that there was a direct
This works for me...
Spencer
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Consensus search: #725 3.4b Appealing decisions
--On torsdag, januar 13, 2005 07:20:22 -0600 Spencer Dawkins
55 matches
Mail list logo
