If I'm reading the following mail correctly, it sounds like the nomcom
is requesting feedback from a working group mailing list.
In other words anyone who creates a tools.ietf.org account for that
address can see the short list of candidates.
At that point, shouldn't we just be making the sho
Hi Sam,
Commenting only on the possibility of accessing the candidate list,
further down:
on 2006-12-18 15:37 Sam Hartman said the following:
>
> If I'm reading the following mail correctly, it sounds like the nomcom
> is requesting feedback from a working group mailing list.
>
> In other words
Judging from the email addresses where I received solicitations for
comments, either every RFC author or every I-D author received an
invitation to comment. (I suspect the latter, since the invitations
seemed to be tailored by working group, i.e., an I-D in a Transport
working group "earned
I received four of these, apparently on the strength of being an RFC
author, and was immediately sure there had been a mistake.
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Judging from the email addresses where I received solicitations for
comments, either every RFC author or every I-D author received an
invi
Sam Hartman wrote:
If I'm reading the following mail correctly, it sounds like the nomcom
is requesting feedback from a working group mailing list.
In other words anyone who creates a tools.ietf.org account for that
address can see the short list of candidates.
At that point, shouldn't we jus
Hi,
Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>> At that point, shouldn't we just be making the short list public?
>
>
>1. They are careful to say that the lists that are stuffed
>with some fake entries. Although I respect the intention,
>this long-standing technique -- attempting to protect the
>privacy of act
