Total of 77 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Nov 2 00:53:02 EDT 2012
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
6.49% |5 | 6.78% |37980 | l...@cisco.com
6.49% |5 | 6.33% |35466 | mstjo...@comcast.ne
Mike:
> Yup. But I'd say their wishes would have a great deal of influence on
> whether or not this would go forward. And I'd still like to get at least
> some indication that this is their desired outcome at this point. I think,
> if nothing else, this needs to be part of whatever record co
At 11:45 PM 11/1/2012, Russ Housley wrote:
>Mike:
>
>As Joel already said, the recall process is not dependent on the wishes of the
>IAOC.
Yup. But I'd say their wishes would have a great deal of influence on whether
or not this would go forward. And I'd still like to get at least some
indica
Mike:
As Joel already said, the recall process is not dependent on the wishes of the
IAOC.
Further, please note that IAB, IESG, and IAOC members cannot be recall petition
signers. RFC 3777 says:
1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are
qualified to be voting m
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 05:45:11PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> found a gap in the procedures I can see the argument for creativity.
> However, according to Bob's note, Marshall has been contacted and rather
> than resigning, said he would consider resigning.
[…]
> In my mind that moves us out of a
Mike,
A 3777 recall isn't dependent on the wishes of the IAOC...
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 1, 2012, at 19:22, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
At 06:01 PM 11/1/2012, Bob Hinden wrote:
>While the IAOC has not discussed this formally, I agree with you. The
>situation did change when we were able to talk with Marshall.
I assume at this point the IAOC would like to pursue the recall option? If
not, please be very clear about it to t
On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:57 PM, "John R Levine" wrote:
>> As a small point of procedures, no one is sending an actual signature.
>>
>> It therefore would provide a modicum of better assurance for signatories to
>> send the email that declares their signature directly to the ISOC President
>> rath
As a small point of procedures, no one is sending an actual signature.
It therefore would provide a modicum of better assurance for signatories to
send the email that declares their signature directly to the ISOC President
rather than to the person initiating the recall.
If you're concerned t
A formal policy requires IETF consensus, and it would be published as a BCP in
the RFC series.
Russ
On Nov 1, 2012, at 5:23 PM, David Rudin (LCA) wrote:
> At a high level, I'm curious what the difference is between an FAQ and a
> formal policy? I ask since Section 6 of the FAQ seems to be pr
Sam,
On Nov 1, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I offer my signature to the recall petition. I am nomcom eligible.
>
> At this point, I believe the recall process is the correct process to
> follow unless there is an approved BCP update.
> In a case where there's been no contact and there'
I offer my signature to the recall petition. I am nomcom eligible.
At this point, I believe the recall process is the correct process to
follow unless there is an approved BCP update.
In a case where there's been no contact and there's an argument we've
found a gap in the procedures I can see the
On 11/01/2012 01:58 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Russ Housley and Ray Pelletier were able to visit Marshall at his home last
> Friday. They discussed the situation with Marshall including describing the
> discussion on the IETF list. He confirmed he had not been reading his email
> since early Augu
Géza,
On Nov 1, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
> Olaf and all,
>
>
> First: I cannot help to think there is a personal tragedy behind all this. I
> hope Marshall makes it back to this community because I will miss him.
>
Same here.
>
>
> Exactly. This is why I hope that some of
Dale,
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> There seems to me to be a "constitutional" issue that has not been
> addressed, and may well bedevil us in the future: In any collective
> body, there is a concept of a quorum, which is set high enough to
> ensure that the actions of any
+1.
On 11/1/12 5:32 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case
> pragmatism doesn't prevail (see my other note).
>
> My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting an
> opinion about Marshall's character.
>
>
At 01:43 PM 11/1/2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case
pragmatism doesn't prevail (see my other note).
My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting
an opinion about
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case
pragmatism doesn't prevail (see my other note).
My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as
reflecting an opinion about Marshall's character.
T
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case pragmatism
doesn't prevail (see my other note).
My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting an opinion
about Marshall's character.
Ditto, and Ditto.
On 01/11/2012 14:08, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/1/2012 10:52 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Per Olafur's email, I submitted my signature directly to him, along with
my Nomcom eligibility status. I'm sure other's did as well, so you
shouldn't take the absence of emails on this list as lack of suppo
On 11/1/2012 11:08 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/1/2012 10:52 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Per Olafur's email, I submitted my signature directly to him, along with
my Nomcom eligibility status. I'm sure other's did as well, so you
shouldn't take the absence of emails on this list as lack of sup
On 11/1/2012 10:52 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Per Olafur's email, I submitted my signature directly to him, along with
my Nomcom eligibility status. I'm sure other's did as well, so you
shouldn't take the absence of emails on this list as lack of support for
the proposal.
(wearing no hat)
Olaf and all,
> First: I cannot help to think there is a personal tragedy behind all this.
> I hope Marshall makes it back to this community because I will miss him.
>
> [ deep breath ]
>
>
> Exactly. This is why I hope that some of his best freinds will try to
contact him personally, or at least
Per Olafur's email, I submitted my signature directly to him, along with my
Nomcom eligibility status. I'm sure other's did as well, so you shouldn't take
the absence of emails on this list as lack of support for the proposal.
Mike
At 06:25 AM 11/1/2012, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am
There seems to me to be a "constitutional" issue that has not been
addressed, and may well bedevil us in the future: In any collective
body, there is a concept of a quorum, which is set high enough to
ensure that the actions of any meeting represent the opinions of the
body as a whole, and which i
I am not NomCom qualified, but I do support the recall. I also suspect
that, given the total disappearance of Marshall Eubanks from all online
activity in early August, he is either ill, deceased, or otherwise unable
to fulfill his obligations. Whichever, the IAOC needs a functional member,
and so
On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:21 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> Fellow IETF'rs
> below is a recall petition that I plan on submitting soon if there is enough
> support.
>
> If you agree with this petition please either comment on this posting, or
> send me email of support noting if you are NomCom
On 10/31/2012 2:30 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I am more concerned than disappointed about Marshall's disappearance from the IETF.
However, I agree that complete absence from an I* position for three months without
explanation should be grounds for recall. So, please consider me to be one o
tglassey wrote:
> //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended
> recipient.
Oh.. better safe than sorry then poof
I am more concerned than disappointed about Marshall's disappearance from the
IETF. However, I agree that complete absence from an I* position for three
months without explanation should be grounds for recall. So, please consider
me to be one of the "signers" of this petition.
Marshall, if y
On 11/1/2012 7:23 AM, Bert wrote:
tglassey wrote:
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the
intended recipient.
Oh.. better safe than sorry then poof
Bert - My apologies let me explain - notice the phrase "...If you are
not the intended recipient" and since y
On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:49 AM, The IAOC wrote:
> The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a
> vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF
> rules.
>
> Marshall Eubanks has been a active IETF participant for many years and
> a member of the IAOC sinc
The IETF Nominations Committee (NomCom) continues to seek input from
the IETF Community.
The final list of candidates (as per RFC 5680) that the NomCom is
considering for open positions can be found at:
https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2012/input/
The NomCom will be holding office hours during I
Hello,
I am glad to see that apparently there are no more supporters of this
proposal.
Please be more tolerant to Marshall Eubank.
Best,
Géza
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
> Warren Kumari
> --
> Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a t
I realise that the timekeeping of the IETF is not on a par with its
engineering, but it seems a shame to promulgate a new charter for which
every milestone is already several months in arrears.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "The IESG"
To: "IETF-Announce"
Cc: "bfd WG"
Sent: Tues
35 matches
Mail list logo
