John
Why is this a no-op for the reasons you state? You're rationale is good,
yet past experience shows the following to be true:
that if a candidate is a sitting AD who wants the position again,
why would they have ever be replaced?
The opposite of this has happened within the last few
James,
Now I'm going to need to be a little cynical...
--On Wednesday, 27 July, 2005 18:44 -0500 "James M. Polk"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about a NONCOM review situation roughly such as this:
>
> if there is more than one candidate that can do the AD
> position for a particular area, if
At 06:56 PM 7/27/2005 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
Phillip and Joel,
--On Wednesday, 27 July, 2005 13:32 -0700 "Hallam-Baker,
Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to
see some other options considered.
How about a NONCOM review situation roughly such as this:
if there is more than on
Phillip and Joel,
--On Wednesday, 27 July, 2005 13:32 -0700 "Hallam-Baker,
Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My biggest worry is the one piece of structure that has no
>> wiggle room. As
>> defined, if the Nomcom in phase 1 decides not to reappoint
>> the incumbent,
>> there is no way t
Hi, Bill,
Thanks for the quick crank through the data - it's pretty interesting,
and especially valuable for discussion of this draft.
Spencer
(p.s. Bill pointed out in a private e-mail that the input dataset he
is using seems to undercount General Area ADs pretty seriously - Fred
Baker sho
> My biggest worry is the one piece of structure that has no
> wiggle room. As
> defined, if the Nomcom in phase 1 decides not to reappoint
> the incumbent,
> there is no way to recover if that turns out not to work. I
> like the idea
> of considering incumbents on their own. But I can not
Hi.
As the perpetrator, I want to make several observations about
the comments so far. I'm going to divide them into two (or
maybe three) parts, with different subject lines. It might be a
while before you see the others -- I'm trying to get some other
things done this week including a couple of
At 1:38 PM -0400 7/25/05, Brian Rosen wrote:
So, I just had to try it, even though my company insists on MS Exchange for
calendars. Of course it didn't work, and I never expected it to work.
However, the error message is at least amusing:
This error can appear if you have attempted to save a
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:41:43 -0400
Bill Fenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just for fun, you could try http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/ietf-63.ics ;
> this is a completely independent implementation of the same mapping so
> may have a completely different failure mode ;-)
>
This works like
Hi Eliot,
--On July 27, 2005 8:04:17 AM +0200 Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I couldn't agree with you more regarding multiple overlapping events.
They're all designed for the case where one might double-book, and even
on occasion triple book, but 8 or 9 events? None of them deal with t
>P.S. - being curious:
A quick analysis of http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html, counting terms
by number of IETF meetings since that's how they're represented there,
results in the following answers for the IESG. The IAB history page
isn't as easy to analyze in the same way but someone certainly c
Someone has been kind enough to point out to me in private email
that my reading skills are deficient. :^(
Specifically, the draft says:
"
" At the end of this phase, the nomcom submits the list of returning
" candidates to the IAB as usual. The IAB makes its decision and the
" choices are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
When I served as an AD, one of the things that would happen around
NOMCOM time is people would come to me and ask if I was "re-upping"
because they would not put their name in if I was. This probably
resulted in some of the best alternative candidates
>Why would you want to have a calender without timezones??
Mostly for clients with bad user interfaces - e.g., old Apple iCal
which didn't let you set the display time zone differently from
the system time zone, or web-based calendar servers that don't allow
the visitor to set the display time zo
There is one thing and one thing only that I believe term limits are
good for:
weakening the power of a body by reducing its experience level
Do we really believe that the IESG and IAB are too powerful?
Do we really want to ensure that the average level of experience on the
IESG and IAB
Brian - while I haven't thought through all of the implications of the
process in draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt, I don't think the two-stage
process will necessarily significantly length then process. The
proposed process would require re-shuffling of of specific tasks, but I
don't think it fun
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
>>If there is community consensus that this draft proposes something
>>reasonable, would we give the draft to the incoming NOMCOM as part of
>>their instructions and perform a BCP 93 process experiment?
>
> in answer to you
Joel M. Halpern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My biggest worry is the one piece of structure that has no wiggle room.
> As defined, if the Nomcom in phase 1 decides not to reappoint the
> incumbent, there is no way to recover if that turns out not to work.
I must disagree.
This "decisio
Spencer,
I agree that it takes time to learn the job. That is one reason to have
staggered terms with two ADs per area. But I have major problems with
other portions of the draft.
For one, a major reason the NOMCOM sees a dirth of candidates is the
major commitment required to do the job (be t
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I have been waiting for a proposal like this one (available from
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00.txt)
since the SIRS experiment in 2003. But, before I start commenting ...
Would this draft be in scope for Newtrk, or is it IETF Discu
Spencer,
I haven't fully analyzed the proposal yet, so I will refrain from
substantive comment.
However, in answer to your question, I'm sure the answer is no,
because the two-stage process suggested in the draft will add a
significant number of weeks to the process, and we would almost
certainl
I have to disagree somewhat with this line suggesting stricter limits on
serving duration.
I agree that a lack of bench strength is a real problem that should be
addressed.
I suspect that we may have more bench strength than we think.
I strongly suspect that with some of the other changes being
I too like this draft and agree that having most IESG members serve
for two terms is ideal and making it more the exception that people
serve for three or four terms. I also like the flexibility it
gives the NOMCOM without creating strict term limits.
When someone is "needed" for more than tw
Absolutely... Be that as it may, I was intrigued as to why Thunderbird
did such a different job on the two files. A quick look at the code did
not help.
Anyway thanks for the effort.. very useful!
Regards,
Elwyn
Eliot Lear wrote:
Bill,
I couldn't agree with you more regarding multiple ov
On 27-jul-2005, at 2:23, Bill Fenner wrote:
One important (IMHO) issue is that Bill's ics does not use
timezone info
for the times.
This was a conscious decision. I think the obvious answer is to have
two versions, one with timezone and one without.
Why would you want to have a calender
25 matches
Mail list logo
