Brian Carpenter had a Last Call comment that I needed to follow up on...
Hi,
(IETF list not copied as I'm on leave and minimising email, but
there is nothing confidential about this comment.)
Feedback on nominees should always be provided privately to
NomCom. Nominees should not
I too support publication of this document. I think this fixes a
serious weakness in the current nomcom process and this will make the
selection process more transparent. I understand the downsides, but
think overall it is an improvement.
Bob
On Jun 5, 2009, at 4:45 PM, The IESG wrote:
Bob Hinden wrote:
I too support publication of this document. I think this fixes a
serious weakness in the current nomcom process
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ie
, 2009 23:33
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
> Subject: Fw: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating
> Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP
>
> Brian Carpenter had a Last Call comment that I needed to follow up
> on...
>
--On Friday, June 05, 2009 16:45 -0700 The IESG
wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
> to consider the following document:
>
> - 'Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing
> Nominees ' as a BCP
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the ne
While I hate commenting on pure process issues there's
one aspect of this that I don't think I've seen mentioned.
(Apologies if this is a repeat.)
I've been nominated a number of times and have agreed to
go forward, but when filling in the form have said something
like: "If you're willing to pick
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Something like: "This is the list of those
nominated (or self-nominated) for IESG positions. The
nominees have said that they're willing to serve if
selected, but there is no implication that they consider
the incumbent unsuited for re-appointment."
Presumably there wo
I really think we want to stay away from any statement which implies
anything about the nominees views about anyone.
I do not think it is reasonable or practical to try to include
disclaimers in the list of nominees about eveyr misapprehension that
readers of the list may form.
We ought not be m
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I really think we want to stay away from any statement which implies
anything about the nominees views about anyone.
I do not think it is reasonable or practical to try to include
disclaimers in the list of nominees about eveyr misapprehension that
readers of the list may
--On Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:47 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
wrote:
> I really think we want to stay away from any statement which
> implies anything about the nominees views about anyone.
> I do not think it is reasonable or practical to try to include
> disclaimers in the list of nominees abou
John,
I think we have reached agreement that the
Nomcom should be able to suppress names when they
conclude that is desirable --that they "may" publish
lists of names if they decide to do so. But the text of
the document actually doesn't make that clear. It
--On Sunday, June 21, 2009 20:50 +0200 Jari Arkko
wrote:
> P.S. For the other issues in your mail -- FWIW, I believe
> fairly strongly that we should make the specific changes
> proposed in this document, as opposed to starting a more
> general redesign.
FWIW, I think I heard rather strong sup
The IETF Last Call discussion of draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist
resulted in a healthy discussion with many people speaking. Some
people think that the open list is the right thing to do, but other
people want to redesign the entire NomCom process from a base set of
principles. This message su
While philosophically I agree with Brian, practically I have to disagree.
My reasoning is that while we don't want that sort of thing to happen,
the only enforcement mechanism is what the nomcom chooses to do. And
while I would hope that they would consider such misbehavior a negative,
I don't
I had an orthogonal question.
Should I read
Nominees should not solicit support, and other IETF community members
should not post statements of support/non-support for nominees in any
public forum.
as
(Nominees should not solicit support), and (other IETF community members
should not post
Hi Jari,
Ya know, I was looking at that text thinking the same thing...
I had an orthogonal question.
Should I read
Nominees should not solicit support, and other IETF community members
should not post statements of support/non-support for nominees in any
public forum.
as
(Nominees shou
I support the use of "should".
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Brian Carpenter had a Last Call comment that I needed to follow up on...
Hi,
(IETF list not copied as I'm on leave and minimising email, but
there is nothing confidential about this comment.)
Feedback on nominees should always be
While we can wordsmith the proposed resolution from now till doomsday,
what has been suggested seems good enough. I can certainly live with it.
Please, approve this document for publication as an BCP.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual s
+1 to what Joel said. Also, if other people want to look at the diff
like I did, here are the URLs for your convenience. The first one is
from the previous last call, the second one from the previous version:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-04.txt&url2=draft-d
Jari Arkko wrote:
+1 to what Joel said.
+1. Yes, please.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 2009-8-10, at 23:24, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Please, approve this document for publication as an BCP.
Agreed.
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:44 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2009-8-10, at 23:24, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Please, approve this document for publication as an BCP.
Agreed.
+1
Bob
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
potential issues were discussed.
Leslie.
Original Message
Subject: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating
Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: The IESG
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
To: IETF-Anno
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Having reviewed the draft, I support publication of this document as a
BCP. I think it is a long-needed change. I understand that there are
important tradeoffs involved, and while I acknowledge that there are
disadvantages to this change, I think that i
I also support the publication of this document (modulo some nits that
were discussed earlier). Yes, there are trade-offs. But having observed
the process from various sides over the years, I do I believe adopting
the more open model is the right thing to do.
Jari
This is a useful and necessary change.
A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those
currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs
directly.
Direct elections provide accountability and authority. Today we have
an Internet Architecture Board that stopped trying to d
I agree with Sam and Jari. This is a good and overdue change.
Lars
On 2009-6-10, at 17:21, Jari Arkko wrote:
I also support the publication of this document (modulo some nits that
were discussed earlier). Yes, there are trade-offs. But having
observed
the process from various sides over the
Hi Phillip,
At 08:32 10-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those
currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs
directly.
The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF
list of nominees. The discuss
SM wrote:
Hi Phillip,
At 08:32 10-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those
currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs
directly.
The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF
list of nominees. Th
On Wed Jun 10 16:32:37 2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those
currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs
directly.
A complete disaster for me, at least, since I - along with a
substantial number of reasonably active a
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:32:56AM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
> worth a shot. If MonsterCorp starts larding up the
> leadership with their own employees or it turns into
> a popularity contest it can be undone,
I doubt that it can be undone once done. Any attempt to undo will be
decried as an
On Thu Jun 11 13:21:22 2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
And why did XMPP leave IETF process in the first place?
And have you stopped beating your wife yet?
The XSF never followed the IETF process in the first place, and
therefore could not leave it - I doubt many of the formers were aware
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:34:08AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The idea that we would not want to return to the current system sounds
> like an argument against the status quo, rather than in favor of it.
Again, I don't have an opinion on the draft one way or the other, but
the above stri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Melinda Shore wrote:
> SM wrote:
>> Hi Phillip,
>> At 08:32 10-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>> A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those
>>> currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs
>>> directly.
>> T
w
> potential issues were discussed.
>
> Leslie.
>
> -------- Original Message ----
> Subject: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating
> Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
> From: The I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The deliberative process of NOMCON means that it is more likely that
> consensus will be reached on the candidates that fewest people object
> to rather than those that have the strongest support.
Deliberation means tha
At 03:32 11-06-2009, Melinda Shore wrote:
worth a shot. Enough people feel the current
process isn't working to suggest that the current
process really isn't working.
It suggests that there is a perception that the current process isn't working.
At 04:51 11-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote
At 10:51 AM +0200 6/11/09, Lars Eggert wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-115115602;
micalg=sha1; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"
I agree with Sam and Jari. This is a good and overdue change.
Lars
I also agree with this proposal, based on several experiences
Joe,
1) exposing the full list to the entire community invites lobbying the
nomcom
This probably already happens to some extent, but do
we really want to encourage this?
It's not clear this will lead to more lobbying than we have now. I
think lobbying happens a lot now and
Actually, that raises a very good point.
At present the list is neither secret, nor public. Any bad effect from
the list being public will occur, any bad effect from it being secret
can occur.
Right, it's a "secret" that many people know. Better to have it be
public.
Bob
__
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Hinden wrote:
> Joe,
>
>> 1) exposing the full list to the entire community invites lobbying the
>> nomcom
>>
>> This probably already happens to some extent, but do
>> we really want to encourage this?
>
> It's not clear this will lead
I was reading the Appeals court ruling in the VeriSign case last night
and Michael Froomkin's paper on the anti-trust issues affecting ICANN.
If you follow the logic of the Appeals court opinion it is highly
unlikely that ICANN can remain a private organization. Since the
administration already und
And why did XMPP leave IETF process in the first place?
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed Jun 10 16:32:37 2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>
>> A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those
>> currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and
The idea that we would not want to return to the current system sounds
like an argument against the status quo, rather than in favor of it.
To answer Melinda, yes, the FSF would probably try to get a person
onto the IAB. Let us imagine that they did so. Either the person is a
raving lunatic, in wh
The deliberative process of NOMCON means that it is more likely that
consensus will be reached on the candidates that fewest people object
to rather than those that have the strongest support.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
Actually, that raises a very good point.
At present the list is neither secret, nor public. Any bad effect from
the list being public will occur, any bad effect from it being secret
can occur.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Joe,
>
>> 1) exposing the full list to the entire c
On Jun 11, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Actually, that raises a very good point.
At present the list is neither secret, nor public. Any bad effect from
the list being public will occur, any bad effect from it being secret
can occur.
I think that that is a "deep truth," sinc
Joe,
Having served on NOMCOM more than once, and having been solicited for
inputs every year, I much prefer publishing the names of folks have
consented to be considered for IAB and IESG positions. The addition
of "ringers" to lists that are sent out (to hide the identities of
the true candi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I do not debate the utility to the Nomcom of this change.
I believe it comes with a cost, and I do not agree that it is a simple
decision. I do not agree that the Nomcom is the only party here worth
consideration.
Joe
Stephen Kent wrote:
> Joe,
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russ White wrote:
>> If everyone knew, there would be more lobbying since there would be more
>> people participating. I doubt the direct or secret-list lobbying would
>> wane much as a result.
>
> I don't think you'll get any more lobbying than you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> If everyone knew, there would be more lobbying since there would be more
> people participating. I doubt the direct or secret-list lobbying would
> wane much as a result.
I don't think you'll get any more lobbying than you get now. The point
of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Again, I agree that this is better for the Nomcom. The questions are:
>
> 1- is this better for the pool of applicants
> or does being on a public list provide
> a reason not to offer to serve?
There is also the o
On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Joe,
1) exposing the full list to the entire community invites lobbying
the
nomcom
This probably already happens to some extent, but do
we really want to encourage this?
It's not clear this will lead to more lobbying than we
53 matches
Mail list logo
