Re: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)
Please someone find and share the UUCP message where the body said I don't understand the concern about too many message headers.
Re: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)
From: Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com Please someone find and share the UUCP message where the body said I don't understand the concern about too many message headers. I don't know about there being a UUCP one, but here: http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/humour/net.header is the ARPANET one. Noel
Re: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)
On Sunday, June 30, 2013, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com javascript:; Please someone find and share the UUCP message where the body said I don't understand the concern about too many message headers. I don't know about there being a UUCP one, but here: http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/humour/net.header is the ARPANET one. Noel That was it, thanks! I hope it's in the archives.
RE: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)
This message is reply to an author of a new draft under ietf discussion. If this list is not the correct place to discuss such matter, then the list's responsible Chair is required to give details of where to discuss such new work. I have no idea what a list's responsible chair is, but there is an ITEF list dedicated for the discussion of issues related to NomCom. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom This mailing list is a relocation of the mailing list used by the (now-concluded)NomCom working group, and reopened for discussion of the cureent proposals for revision of the Nomcom process. Please note that I was told not to post more discuss messages on this list That is an interesting statement, IMHO. Had you said requested, I would have understood. Had you said warned of the consequences if you continued to post in a particular way, I would have known what was going on. But told not to post is, AFAIK only achievable through a posting ban, which you don't seem to have received. Adrian
RE: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)
From: Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk told not to post is, AFAIK only achievable through a posting ban, which you don't seem to have received. Yet. Noel
RE: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)
From: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Yet. PS: I probably should have added a :-) to that. Sorry, it's early, the brain's not firing on all cylinders yet, and I was so entranced by the chance to set the record for the shortest ever IETF list e-mail... :-) Noel
Re: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)
On 06/29/2013 05:28 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Yet. PS: I probably should have added a :-) to that. Sorry, it's early, the brain's not firing on all cylinders yet, and I was so entranced by the chance to set the record for the shortest ever IETF list e-mail... :-) No.
Re: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)
In article 51cf38eb.3080...@dougbarton.us you write: On 06/29/2013 05:28 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Yet. PS: I probably should have added a :-) to that. Sorry, it's early, the brain's not firing on all cylinders yet, and I was so entranced by the chance to set the record for the shortest ever IETF list e-mail... :-) No. ?
Re: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)
The shortest ietf email was sent at least 20 years ago, consisted of a single ! as the body. Of course the subject went on for two lines. I forget what the subject was. Mike Sent from my iPad On Jun 29, 2013, at 15:43, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: On 06/29/2013 05:28 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Yet. PS: I probably should have added a :-) to that. Sorry, it's early, the brain's not firing on all cylinders yet, and I was so entranced by the chance to set the record for the shortest ever IETF list e-mail... :-) No.
RE: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)
-1 Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Noel Chiappa [j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu] Sent: 29 June 2013 13:28 To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: RE: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility) From: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Yet. PS: I probably should have added a :-) to that. Sorry, it's early, the brain's not firing on all cylinders yet, and I was so entranced by the chance to set the record for the shortest ever IETF list e-mail... :-) Noel
Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)
This message is reply to an author of a new draft under ietf discussion. If this list is not the correct place to discuss such matter, then the list's responsible Chair is required to give details of where to discuss such new work. + Hi Moonesamy, (the Author of draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00) I think the draft still needs more details, for example, the Abstract says to give remote contributors eligible to serve but how many remote, it is not-reasonable/not-practical to have most remote, and it is not fare/diverse to have all not remote. Furthermore, you did not mention diversity in the draft related to members selected. AB I prefer if you refer me, or the discussion list chair can refer me to somewhere we can discuss this new draft. Please note that I was told not to post more discuss messages on this list, so the chair or you are required to respond on this issue related to discussing the draft, because this may be my last post regarding this I-D. AB the update may need an informational draft (or better introduction) like what [1] is doing, so if we know the information on process challenges we will know the best practice. I like the [1] draft I think it needs to be renewed including remote members possibilities. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-crocker-nomcom-process-00.txt AB you need to define *remote contributor* in the draft. When the authors define it then I can amend or edit. You need to mention that most of meeting of IETF per year are in one region which makes some from other regions to contribute remotely. Section 2 The section is not reasonable because you changed with no strong reasons. Why you want to change totally, I recommend to add idea not change. As to give opportunity to additional memebrs that are remote. These additional memebrs will have a special condition. This way you don't change the conditions for the current procedure of selecting f2f memebrs, and you may limit the number of remote contributors maybe 10 % of the total memebrs. AB suggest in Section 2 I suggest not to update the text of the RFC but to add new rule for selecting few remote participants. AB you need to add what are the remote memebrs responsibilities, because they may be similar or different than the other memebrs. my answers to your questions below, On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:50 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote: Hi Abdussalam, Thanks for explaining why you support the draft. I am going to list some questions. Please read them as points to consider. There isn't any obligation to provide comments. You mean the draft should consider, - What is your opinion about helping the pie get larger? No we don't want things to get larger for others to eat, we want things to get smarter for others to use, share, and develop equally. - What would be an acceptable way of determining whether someone has been contributing to the IETF over a period of five meetings? Where are the five meetings (is it a f2f meeting?)and what kind of contributing you are asking? - Dave Cridland suggested that working groups provide a smallish set of volunteers each for the selection process. Is it okay to leave it to the working group chair to make the decision? I will send you discusses/answers offline I really want to focus questions related to the new draft not other issues. Therefore, I think the draft needs to involve what was discussed on the list (feedback). Updating this RFC procedure may need more reasons than what was presented in the draft, I think it is nice if you add more and change info to renew this draft for more further discusses. Thanks. AB
