I disagree with this policy action.
Looking at the data, there are very few, if any, people who would be
eligible as nomcom members under the current version of rule 14
(attended 3 out of 5 IETF's on any program) but not under the modified
version. And then, we have not factored in that
On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
cards, and it takes what he considered an unfairly large percentage
when customers pay by credit cards.
And that's
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05:52AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
cards, and it takes what he considered an
On May 10, 2010, at 5:05 52AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
cards, and it takes what he considered an unfairly
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
cards, and it takes what he
I think it's really all about the credit card fees. Cab drivers, at least in
the US, are often on a small enough margin, with high fixed costs, that the few
percent taken by the card companies can be the difference between a worthwhile
and a wasted fare. Next time a cabbie doesn't want your
On May 10, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
I think it's really all about the credit card fees. Cab drivers, at
least in the US, are often on a small enough margin, with high fixed
costs, that the few percent taken by the card companies can be the
difference between a
--On Friday, May 07, 2010 09:29 -0700 Dave CROCKER
dcroc...@bbiw.net wrote:
There is a rather fundamental constitutional difference
between having the IESG assess community rough consensus,
versus having the IESG ask for input and then make the
decision based on IESG preferences. In the
IAOC Hat Off
IMHO, the issue is not that one does not get the flavor of the IETF by only
attending for a day. I would offer it is that prospective nomcom members would
miss out on the experiences of (1) formal community feedback from scheduled
meetings during the IETF meetings and (2)
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
cards, and it takes what he considered an unfairly large
On May 7, 2010, at 10:12 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
And, yes, a regular IETF participant who attended the last
meeting on a day pass should have been able to know whether that
would count for the Nomcom qualification or not. But nothing
prevented a person in that position from asking the
I think your email (below) argues quite eloquently for why it doesn't matter a
whole lot what the statement says. As you point out, this is not likely to make
a difference regarding who is actually selected for nomcom. I don't think that
we know whether or not there would be *anybody* effected
Is there no bottom to this particular rat hole? Enough, already!
Bob Braden
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 5/10/2010 8:39 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I argue that what the IETF now proposes is not a clarification to the BCP but
a change to the BCP. Applying such changes retroactively stinks.
Yes, it does stink. As nearly as I can tell, the import of having Day Passes,
in terms of other IETF
Robert:
I'd like to share my thoughts about your comments. First, I want to say
that I mostly agree with you. However, your suggestion is not
practical. If there was a WG that could weigh in on this topic, then
that would have been done, but there is not an existing WG with the
charter to
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
...
Well, being such a person, before I registered for a day pass I did not
consider the NOMCOM ramifications. If I had, I think it would likely that I
would simply have assumed the existing BCP were in force.
On May 10, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The nature of that price -- besides the pain of this discussion -- is going
to be retroactive enfranchisement or disenfranchisement of some attendees.
Either way, that's pretty egregious. But since Day Passes have been handled
pretty
On May 10, 2010, at 11:54 52AM, Bob Braden wrote:
Is there no bottom to this particular rat hole? Enough, already!
We first have to discuss if the credit cards have to be in ASCII vs. HTML or
PDF.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Yes, it does stink. As nearly as I can tell, the import of having Day Passes,
in terms of other IETF participation such as being on Nomcom, was entirely
missed by the community -- that is, by all of us. We are now paying the price
for that.
But
At 23:51 -0500 5/6/10, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Dear IESG,
I'm conflicted on this one.
That's a statement I can agree with. Superficially, it seems to make
sense that 20% (1 day of 5) doesn't count. But...
As others have said - paying full fare and attending one day vs.
buying a day pass
On Thu, 6 May 2010, The IESG wrote:
The IESG observes that attending a single day of the IETF meeting is not
sufficient for a new participant to learn the culture of the IETF or the
qualities that would make an effective IETF leader.
Opposed. (Disclosures: I've not used a day pass. I have
--On Monday, 12 April, 2010 12:44 -0700 The IESG
iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
to consider the following document:
- 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command '
draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts-11.txt as a Proposed
Standard
...
On 5/10/2010 9:43 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Personally, I think the right answer might be some kind of attendance
coefficient based not just on last N meetings attended but on
overall attendance record (and by implication knowledge of the IETF).
This is a very nice example of taking the
This note assumes that it was correct (not merely reasonable, as
reasonable folks can differ, and sometimes come to incorrect
conclusions) for someone using the day pass program to assume that said
attendance would count.
While some people have asserted that they find it obvious that it should
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
This note assumes that it was correct (not merely reasonable, as reasonable
folks can differ, and sometimes come to incorrect conclusions) for someone
using the day pass program to assume that said attendance would
I fairly strongly support the IESG's proposed policy statement on the
day pass experiment. I specifically belive that it is counter to our
ability to fund our ongoing activities to turn the day pass experiment
into a way to reduce the cost of attending IETF on an ongoing basis. We
want to do
On 5/10/2010 10:33 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
While it is certainly true that we can craft arguments for either
interpretation, I don't personally find the arguments for the narrow
interpretation all that compelling. If we have to err, let's err on the
side of inclusiveness.
Given that the
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
...
We need all the volunteers we can get.
I think that's nonsense and typical of the fixation in recent years on
maximizing the quantity of nomcom volunteers with little apparent
concern for their level of interest. As far
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Given that the argument for /ex/clusiveness pertains to competence at
rendering judgment about IETF leadership candidates, can you explain why
lowering the bar helps produce better leadership selection?
Because from my own experience, I've
On 5/10/2010 11:08 AM, David Morris wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Given that the argument for /ex/clusiveness pertains to competence at
rendering judgment about IETF leadership candidates, can you explain why
lowering the bar helps produce better leadership selection?
At 10:12 AM 5/7/2010, John C Klensin wrote:
To the extent to which we want to open this can of worms (or are
forced into it by necessity), there is a second fundamental
'constitutional' difference here. As I read BCP 101, it is
pretty clear that the IAOC (or IASA generally) are forbidden to
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/10/2010 11:08 AM, David Morris wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Given that the argument for /ex/clusiveness pertains to competence at
rendering judgment about IETF leadership candidates, can you explain why
lowering the
Henk,
I do agree, of course, about the likelihood of this rule matching anyone
who actually does volunteer for Nomcom.
I do think that we should clarify the policy regardless of the small
likelihood. Think of it as insurance against an unlikely event but with
bad consequences (possibly long
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
...
We need all the volunteers we can get.
I think that's nonsense and typical of the fixation in recent years on
maximizing the quantity of
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
illness forced them to participate remotely. I'd personally rather
we expand attend to include remote attendance rather than narrow
it to exclude folks who didn't pay for a whole week.
I've already said too much in this thread, but
On 05/10/10 08:58, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Yes, it does stink. As nearly as I can tell, the import of having Day
Passes, in terms of other IETF participation such as being on Nomcom,
was entirely missed by the community -- that is, by all of us. We are
now paying the price for that.
One could
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
illness forced them to participate remotely. I'd personally rather
we expand attend to include remote attendance rather than narrow
it to exclude folks who
Robert:
| That is the process that made RFC 3777 a BCP. With the IAOC conducting
the
| Day Pass experiment, an interpretation of the rule in RFC 3777 regarding
| NomCom eligibility is needed.
Why?
From the discussion at the plenary, it was clear to me that some people
expected the
On 5/10/2010 1:08 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
illness forced them to participate remotely. I'd personally rather
we expand attend to include remote attendance
Would it be possible to get a number from the secretariat of those who
have paid full freight for 2 of the last 5 meetings, plus used a day
pass for one or more of the other 3?
I have already asserted that the attention devoted to this so far has
exceeded that which is reasonable based on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
todd == todd glassey tglas...@earthlink.net writes:
todd Doesnt then also attending a meeting through a video
todd conference including streaming also qualify? Seems to me both
todd are reasonable methods of attending these days.
I also
Russ Housley wrote:
From the discussion at the plenary, it was clear to me that some people
expected the purchase of a day pass to count as participating in that
IETF meeting, and that others had the opposite expectation. Both views
have been expressed on this thread. Thus, an
I traveled through Schipol last January. My Visa debit card (with PIN) worked
at the human counter with the PIN Cards Only sign. It was later refused at a
different station, but I think that was a matter of an untrained attendant more
than a technology failure. (He expected a chip.)
On May 9,
Date:Mon, 10 May 2010 16:25:12 -0400
From:Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Message-ID: 4be86ba8.2060...@vigilsec.com
| From the discussion at the plenary, it was clear to me that some people
| expected the purchase of a day pass to count as participating in that
- Original Message -
From: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu
To: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
I fairly strongly support the IESG's proposed policy statement on the
day pass experiment. I
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
...
We need all the volunteers we can get.
I think that's nonsense and
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Domain Certificates in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) '
draft-ietf-sip-domain-certs-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Session Initiation Protocol Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Robert
47 matches
Mail list logo
