Just to add my two cents to this discussion from a (past) noncom chair
perpsective, having more experienced IETF participants on the Nomcom helps
tremendously. It makes it far easier for the noncom chair and non-voting
members (previous nomcom chair and liaisons) to stick to the roles as
On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Just to add my two cents to this discussion from a (past) noncom
chair perpsective, having more experienced IETF participants on the
Nomcom helps tremendously. It makes it far easier for the noncom
chair and non-voting members (previous
On 7/30/2010 9:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I was discussing this with various people yesterday - maybe it would be useful
to have a moving average NOMCOM, with a two year term, and 50% replacement
each year. Once that was set up, I think that the need for experienced hands
would diminish -
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 03:46:12AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I was discussing this with various people yesterday - maybe it would be
useful to have a moving average NOMCOM, with a two year term, and 50%
replacement each year. Once that was set up, I think that the need for
experienced
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/30/2010 06:53 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
So I can't complain about the get-togethers of any sort, just that there
wasn't enough time for them. I would like to encourage the use of IETF
tools
I also think that a 50% replacement rule - or even a 66% replacement
rule would be very useful. The work load is very high, but much of
that is gathering knowledge and opinions on the different candidates.
Since the candidate set from year to year is not disjoint, I think
that the work load for
I do not think it is reasonable to ask people to commit for serving a
two year term on nomcom. Some folks have the energy and interest to do
so. Wonderful and thank you to them. But given that it is an intense
personnel selection process, I do not think expecting two years of
service for it
On 7/30/10 9:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Just to add my two cents to this discussion from a (past) noncom chair
perpsective, having more experienced IETF participants on the Nomcom helps
tremendously. It makes it far easier for the
Correct - I was not specifically referring to folks that previously had been
on Nomcom.
However, there are certainly folks that had previously served on Nomcom that
do volunteer again - last year's Nomcom had a voting member that had been on
3 or 4 other Nomcoms and several others that had been
Fred,
I have mixed feelings about this. I had a tough week, particularly with
lunches and dinner times packed with more meetings than usual. I already
complained to Ray that they had made the system too efficient. You could
now get lunch sandwich from the cafeteria in five minutes, making it
At 06:15 AM 7/30/2010, Aaron Falk wrote:
On 7/30/10 9:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Just to add my two cents to this discussion from a (past) noncom
chair perpsective, having more experienced IETF participants on the
Nomcom helps
On 30 jul 2010, at 14.54, Jari Arkko wrote:
Participation. As you can tell from above, I do not feel capable (or even
obliged) of attending all these meetings.
I just hope everyone understand you and other busy people are indeed busy, and
need a break now and then. And that non-participation
I think it may be important to better emphasis the difference between
formal BoFs and informal promotional meetings.
While Formal BoFs are not absolutely necessary for process purposes,
they are usually a good idea to help the IAB and IESG judge interest.
Process-wise, these informal barBoFs
I think there are really two issues here.
First is people who have an idea they want to present, but that idea either
doesn't fit the charter of any particular working group (or they don't know
about such a working group), or else said working group's schedule is too full
with existing work.
Yoav Nir wrote:
First is people who have an idea they want to present,
but that idea either doesn't fit the charter of any
particular working group (or they don't know about such a
working group), or else said working group's schedule
is too full with existing work.
The way that's
On Jul 30, 2010, at 7:32 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Yoav Nir wrote:
First is people who have an idea they want to present,
but that idea either doesn't fit the charter of any
particular working group (or they don't know about such a
working group), or else said working group's schedule
is
I can see the desire to have some more experience on the nomcom.
However, I am completely opposed to invidious schemes to divide the nomcom
voting members into two (or more) classes. And I think the desired results
can be obtained without doing so.
The current qualification is attendance 3 out
Hi Donald-
You present an interesting idea and I appreciate your desire to avoid a
two-class nomcom. If you were to take that approach, I'd suggest allocating
points as below:
High points (e.g., 10)
- served as a working group chair
- served on the IESG or IAB
Medium points (e.g., 5)
-
The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Authorization Using KeyNote'
draft-keromytis-tls-authz-keynote-07.txt as an Informational RFC.
The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the
datatracker
The IESG has received a request from the Integrated Security Model for
SNMP WG (isms) to consider the following document:
- 'Using Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting services to
Dynamically Provision View-based Access Control Model User-to-Group
Mappings'
20 matches
Mail list logo
