On 01/11/2012 21:45, Sam Hartman wrote:
...
> 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 argument for cre
I also, with regret, would like to add my name to the recall
petition. I am NomCom eligible.
Thanks,
Steve
Brian,
I would like to express my sadness as well, adding that I am most probably
not NomCom eligible.
I was only 23 when one of my freinds, community activist in the students
circle of the university, committed a suicide. Three years later it
happened again, by one other freind of us.
I feel th
On 01/11/2012 19:43, 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
>>
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 providing instructions on
how IETF participants should conduct themselves, which seems more like a policy
than an FAQ.
Thanks,
David
-Original Message-
Why does the "mailing list memberships reminder" send passwords in the
clear?
For everything else I'm subscribed to, if I forget my details, one click
sends a one-time password-reset link.
Passwords are never mailed out, and never shown.
Thanks,
P.
In article <5092d99f.3070...@cisco.com> you write:
>Why does the "mailing list memberships reminder" send passwords in the
>clear?
Because that's what Mailman does. Send code.
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the enviro
On 1 Nov 2012, at 20:20, Paul Aitken wrote:
> Why does the "mailing list memberships reminder" send passwords in the clear?
Because mailman is brain-dead stupid. See:
http://www.jwz.org/doc/mailman.html
Sadly, and despite my best efforts to find alternative mailing list software,
mailman wins
Apparently no need to "send code". Mailman project claims this is fixed in
development version 3 (not yet released)
discussion on plain text passwords
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2010-July/069844.html
project todo list
http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/Mailman+3.0
(down under
I worry about the allocation of sub-TLVs in this I-D.
It calls for
"The following Sub-TLV changes, which comprise three updates and two
additions, are made for two TLV Types in the aforementioned sub-
registry: TLV Type 1 for "Target FEC Stack", and TLV Type 21 for
"Reply Path"."
and it i
> From: Russ Housley
> And, the community does not have rough consensus for simply declaring
> his seat vacant under the current set of BCPs.
Why not, I cannot fathom, because as SM has pointed out (hat tip), RFC 4333,
"IAOC Member Selection Guidelines and Process", has text which i
On 11/2/2012 12:09 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> "if the appointed member is unable to serve the full two-year term,
>> the selecting body may, at its discretion, immediately select a
>> replacement to serve the remainder of the term using the interim
>> process defined in Sect
Tom,
On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:05 PM, t.p. wrote:
> I worry about the allocation of sub-TLVs in this I-D.
>
Thanks for the comments. I share worries about keeping synchronicity between
sub-registries in this fashion.
> It calls for
> "The following Sub-TLV changes, which comprise three updates an
Noel,
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>
> And he's definitely "unable to serve". But I guess the IETF would rather
> deploy the most onerous, heavy-weight bureacratic process it can find (one
> intended for entirely different circumstances), as opposed to using the
>
Why does the "mailing list memberships reminder" send passwords in the
clear?
Because that's what Mailman does. Send code.
And that's acceptable to the IETF? You're kidding me, right?
I can't speak for the IETF, but I do note that the same password notices
have been going out on the first o
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:52 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> 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
> Only majordomo2, which has been unmaintained for a while now (and
>it's author calls it "Dead" holds much of a chance, but I doubt it
?would work for the IETF in its current condition.
Actually, MJ2 works great, I've been using it in production for years,
but I agree that we'd need to locate a p
Hello,
The IAOC Chair posted a message about the IAOC appointing a
replacement liaison to the IETF NomCom after learning from the NomCom
chair that Marshall had not responded to emails from the NomCom chair. [1]
According to BCP 113:
"However, if the appointed member is unable to serve the
>
> it would appreciated if NomCom could determine:
>
> (a) Whether the appointed member is unable to serve the full two-year term
>
This is decidedly NOT something that any process empowers the NomCom chair
to do. Matt could certainly give his opinion as an individual, but I can't
see under wh
Hi Barry,
At 17:15 02-11-2012, Barry Leiba wrote:
This is decidedly NOT something that any process empowers the NomCom
chair to do. Matt could certainly give his opinion as an
individual, but I can't see under what process it would have any
official weight.
I mentioned NomCom instead of NomC
On 11/2/2012 2:47 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
it would appreciated if NomCom could
determine:
(a) Whether the appointed member is unable to serve the full two-year
term
Nomcom has no authority to make that determination.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
21 matches
Mail list logo
