Do you raise a discussion saying the below?
I believe you should be expected to more clearly differentiate your
*Review* (based on the such procedure criteria) - and its accompanying
Position ballot, with your personal review.
(Modified from the first message of thread)
Refering to first message:
Hi Arturo, and all,
(sorry that this message is long but I want to make this my last post
on the subject)
The reason of this message/subject is that I want to avoid some group
working together to achieve their purpose (while they may be fogetting
the IETF purpose) within a WG. If I am a company an
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 06:22:17PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>> to be the best. Pretty much every organization that applauds
>> itself for its meritocratic reward structure (to the extent
>> that an I* gig is a "reward") and yet only advances white
>> guys says the
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 06:22:17PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
> to be the best. Pretty much every organization that applauds
> itself for its meritocratic reward structure (to the extent
> that an I* gig is a "reward") and yet only advances white
> guys says the same thing.
Speaking only perso
Hi, Brian,
On 04/10/2013 01:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> For simplicity sake (and because I'm not sure how one would tone that
>> one down), my suggestion would be to apply you proposed text, modulo
>> that sentence.
>>
>> Would that be okay with you? -- If not, please do let me know, so tha
On 4/12/2013 8:51 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 12, 2013, at 7:32 PM, SM wrote:
Thomas Narten mentioned that: "we have the tendency to pick the people we know and
trust, which is understandable". How many IAB members feel strongly about open
standards, rough consensus and running code? To kno
If you think security and congestion are arcane, you have... problems.
This was an actual ietf working geoup, and not some e.g. W3c thing?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.p.
[daed
Henry B. Hotz wrote:
>
> Stefan Santesson wrote:
> >
> > Nothing has changed in this regard.
> >
> > The good response is pretty clear that it by default provides information
> > that the cert is not on a black-list (is not know to be revoked).
> > However, it is also made clear that extensions
On 4/12/13 1:26 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> No argument from me, I'm just asking that a comment/position/question
> that I don't understand be substantiated.
And I'm telling you that I think the numbers are highly suggestive
of bias. We can take a swing at getting a very rough handle on
that but I'm
This dude's ready to ship. Thanks for addressing my earlier comments.
Barry
On Friday, April 12, 2013, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status
> Sec
On Apr 12, 2013, at 7:32 PM, SM wrote:
> Thomas Narten mentioned that: "we have the tendency to pick the people we
> know and trust, which is understandable". How many IAB members feel strongly
> about open standards, rough consensus and running code? To know the answer I
> would have to actu
SM wrote:
>
> Ted Lemon wrote:
> >
> >So in fact you don't need to put some percentage of white males on
> >the IESG, the IAB or the IAOC to make me happy. I want people on
> >these bodies who feel strongly about open standards, rough consensus
> >and running code. That's the kool-aid I ha
+1 on for John's response.
I will argue with my manager if I think they are wrong and I've gotten positive
results from giving managers feedback on their performance. Of course,
disagreeing with management won't always get the decision changed, but I've
never felt I lost anything by raising th
Hi Ted,
At 14:06 12-04-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
I'd like to take slight exception to one thing that this paragraph
implies: that only a person who looks like me and comes from the
same region can represent my interests. I
Let's see how many IETF participants (I'll exclude voting members of
I*
> "James" == James Polk writes:
James> The nomcom isn't randomly picking hats in a crowd. They are
James> picking talent of those that have volunteered to serve. At
Volunteered, and who have employer/funding support.
The apparent bias that we are experiencing is the result of 30+ ye
--On Friday, April 12, 2013 20:24 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
> How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager
> about the manager's decisions or performance?
In most successful companies, yes.
> Only
> Owners/shareholders can question managers and staff.
And companies th
On 4/12/13 5:52 PM, t.p. wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Arturo Servin"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM
>>
>> Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
>>
>> The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was
> followed
>> and the document reache
Melinda,
On 4/12/2013 3:11 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 4/12/2013 11:04 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
>> While I've been very reluctant to jump on this topic, I have to ask
>> what's the basis for this assertion?
>
> I think the numbers are pretty compelling, which is why
> I think they would deserve s
On Apr 12, 2013, at 4:01 PM, SM wrote:
> Let's take IAOC members as an example. NomCom chose two men from the United
> States. The IAB chose a man from the United States. The IESG chose a man
> from the United States. The ISOC Board of Trustees chose a man from the
> United States. There i
- Original Message -
From: "Arturo Servin"
To:
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM
>
> Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
>
> The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was
followed
> and the document reached consensus in the WG and in the IETF LC and it
>
At 02:11 PM 4/12/2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
And I don't know if you intended to or not, but what you
communicated is "The best candidates are nearly always
western white guys," since that's who's being selected.
That's a problematic suggestion.
I respect you, Melinda. I think you are smarter an
On 4/12/13 4:58 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I just change the subject because I still beleive the problem with
> review is in the WG not IESG. Some WGs have few reviews on each WG
> document, that may not be bad, but I think having only one review or
> comment (excluding authors) within a WGLC
On 4/12/13 4:32 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 4/12/2013 11:28 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and
>> change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something wrong
>> in our process because that means that the document ha
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:33:13AM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
> address. As I said I think that looking at the pool of
> nominees who've accepted their nominations and comparing
> it to the pool of people selected would provide one
> very rough measure of bias (explicit or otherwise) in
> one st
Hi Spencer,
At 07:38 12-04-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I was just checking the math.
I understand. :-)
I couldn't possibly say what "good" means, and I'm interested in
better understanding what "diverse" means, to this, ummm, at least
somewhat diverse community ...
There is an underlying
I just change the subject because I still beleive the problem with review
is in the WG not IESG. Some WGs have few reviews on each WG document, that
may not be bad, but I think having only one review or comment (excluding
authors) within a WGLC is wrong in a WG review process. I think WG chair
can
On 4/12/2013 11:28 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and
> change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something wrong
> in our process because that means that the document had a serious
> problem and we didn't spot it in
Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was followed
and the document reached consensus in the WG and in the IETF LC and it
was successfully reviewed by the Gen-ART. If it wasn't then this
particular process sho
How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager about the
manager's decisions or performance? Only Owners/shareholders can question
managers and staff. IMO, the meeting/list discussions on any issue
without an I-D written is the staff talking/working.
If you write an I-D and to updat
On 4/12/2013 11:04 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> While I've been very reluctant to jump on this topic, I have to ask
> what's the basis for this assertion?
I think the numbers are pretty compelling, which is why
I think they would deserve scrutiny if there's the
possibility of remediation if a problem
On April 12, 2013 2:33:13 PM Melinda Shore wrote:
On 4/12/2013 10:12 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> I still think that the IETF community at large has no intentional
> diversity bias, so the process of discussing and analyzing
> diversity in the context of leadership is to help better describe
di
On Apr 10, 2013, at 3:02 AM, Stefan Santesson wrote:
> Nothing has changed in this regard.
>
> The good response is pretty clear that it by default provides information
> that the cert is not on a black-list (is not know to be revoked).
> However, it is also made clear that extensions may be us
On 4/12/2013 10:12 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> I still think that the IETF community at large has no intentional
> diversity bias, so the process of discussing and analyzing
> diversity in the context of leadership is to help better describe
> diversity induced job qualifications as well as uncov
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:40:57PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
> My own feeling is that if we were to find that the
> numbers supported the notion that there's bias
> present in the system we probably couldn't do anything
> about it without tearing the organization apart, so,
> we live with bias, a
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> I have no interest in or knowledge of the technical details,
> but there is a pretty complicated DISCUSS against this draft,
> which doesn't look like rubber-stamping to me:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis/ballot/
>
> I assume you've alrea
On Apr 12, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
> I'm currently seeing a document with some serious defects in
> IETF Last Call (rfc2560bis) and an apparent desire to have
> it Rubberstamped by the IESG (recycling at Proposed Standard).
FWIW, I raised the same question during IESG review. It di
I have no interest in or knowledge of the technical details,
but there is a pretty complicated DISCUSS against this draft,
which doesn't look like rubber-stamping to me:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis/ballot/
I assume you've already let the IESG know about the defects
Dear Ray,
Outcomes, good or bad, are often influenced by groups sharing a common
interest. Important questions should attempt to measure whether these
interests reflect those of the larger Internet communities.
No gender, sexual orientation, ethic, religious, or political background should
b
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
> say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
> sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
> by the IESG does serve a purpose.
I'm currently seeing a document with some seriou
On 4/8/13 13:45 , John Curran wrote:
On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:06 AM, David Farmer wrote:
3. Regarding Public WHOIS in section 4; The constituencies and stakeholders
for Public WHOIS are much broader than just the technical community, a number
of constituencies in civil society have legitimate
On 4/12/2013 12:49 AM, SM wrote:
At 13:46 11-04-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
If the IAB means "members", the number for females, as far as I
know(*), is 2/15, or 13 percent. If it means voting members, the
number for females is 1/13, or just under 8 percent.
If I use the 13% I can say that the
On 12/04/2013 14:17, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>
>> Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
>> say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
>> sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
> say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
> sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
> by the IESG does serve a purpose.
I'm not saying i
On 4/12/2013 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
by the IESG does serve a purpose.
Brian,
Of course it "serves"
Reply to below message
The subject SHOULD be: Evaluating Review Process Performance
I prefer the Subject is: Evaluating WG input, the WG review process,
and the WG output, NOT IESG review.
Hi Joe,
My
Ray
Expert as the IETF (and its allied organisations) is in Internet
Engineering, I doubt if many of those skills transfer into Social
Engineering, which is the field in which I think this question lies.
Lacking such expertise, into how to frame a question in order to get the
answer which is wante
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
by the IESG does serve a purpose.
IMHO, if the IESG members sticks to their own criteria at
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/
47 matches
Mail list logo
