Before we go down this rathole too far again -
1) If you want to second guess the working group, AD and IESG, then the best
approach is to probably review the bidding by reading the emails on the working
group list and then forming an opinion based on that record. I have and I'm
pretty
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
At 09:42 AM 6/27/2013, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent capture, no more than X% of
the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
that even if a couple collude, they still can't get control).
It's
At 11:13 AM 6/27/2013, Scott Brim wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
Once scenario for this - both benign intentions and non-benign - is that a
company instead of sending one person to all the meetings starts rotating
the opportunity to attend
At 09:51 AM 6/27/2013, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent capture, no more than X% of
the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
At 01:38 PM 4/29/2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 29, 2013, at 1:08 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
If raising awareness and sensitivity
isn't enough to get people to think about and make decisions
differently
Statistical analysis shows that even when peoples' awareness is raised,
At 01:34 AM 4/29/2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/28/2013 9:05 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Let's consider for a moment that this may not actually be the correct
question. Instead, consider Why the diversity of the IETF leadership
doesn't reflect the diversity of the set of the IETF WG chairs? I
At 01:57 AM 4/29/2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
including such things as interaction (in)sensitivities, group tone and style,
and observable misbehaviors, all of which are likely to produce biasing
results.
But in which direction?
The same thing could be said of pushing personal or cultural biases
At 12:51 PM 4/29/2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 4/29/13 1:11 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
The other thing to remember is that whilst your proportional estimates
are likely to be correct, in a random process you will get long runs of
bias that only average out in the long run.
Right, although if
At 03:30 PM 4/29/2013, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Apr 29, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
We have an IETF culture - like it or not. It changes over time, as the
population changes. We can't and shouldn't expect to be able to change it
by fiat
At 08:53 PM 4/28/2013, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
The question that people are asking is why the diversity of the IETF
leadership doesn't reflect the diversity of _the IETF_.
Let's consider for a moment that this may not actually be the correct question.
Instead, consider Why the diversity
At 09:56 AM 4/22/2013, Sam Hartman wrote:
RJ == RJ Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com writes:
RJ I oppose Eliot's proposed edits on grounds that they would
RJ reduce the clarity of the specification and also would reduce
RJ IETF and WG consensus about this specification.
Ran, I just
At 11:43 AM 4/18/2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Indeed. Ideally, though, we need a statistician to look at the
historical ratios (e.g. M/F ratios) in the attendee lists vs the
I* membership, to see whether there is a statistically significant
bias in the selection process over the years.
Brian
At 12:15 PM 4/13/2013, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, April 12, 2013 23:37 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
The only lesson I really learned from that experience is that
it is incredibly hard for women[1] to be treated as adult
colleagues in an environment that acts
At 11:11 AM 4/11/2013, Ray Pelletier wrote:
All
The IETF is concerned about diversity. As good engineers, we would like
to attempt to measure diversity while working on addressing and increasing
it. To that end, we are considering adding some possibly sensitive
questions to the registration
At 10:02 AM 3/28/2013, John C Klensin wrote:
For me, it seems especially odd when
compared to the liaison position to the ICANN Board. Both are
very important to the IETF community. Both involve
organizations with which the IETF has a complicated and
multidimensional relationship. Both
At 01:14 AM 3/29/2013, David Kessens wrote:
Mike,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:03:25PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
The process for selecting and appointing liaisons is the purview of the
IAB and not currently subject to external review - and I don't find any
problem with that.
I fully agree
The IETF and various members occasionally break out in back seat driver's
syndrome. It's disappointing.
We need to remember that we are organized more as a republic than a democracy.
We select various folks through the Nomcom process to make decisions on various
things. E.g.. the IESG for
At 10:08 AM 3/19/2013, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:22:46AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
Jeffrey == Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org writes:
Jeffrey Such an exercise would probably generate a lot less
Jeffrey controversy than my unsanctioned badge experiment.
At 02:27 PM 3/13/2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
So I suggest:
2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
determination of the requirements for the job, synthesized
from the desires expressed by the IAB, IESG or IAOC (as
appropriate), desires express by
At 02:57 PM 3/13/2013, Scott Brim wrote:
On 03/13/13 14:51, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote:
At 02:27 PM 3/13/2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
So I suggest:
2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
determination of the requirements for the job, synthesized
At 07:56 AM 3/12/2013, Dan Harkins wrote:
While these studies are interesting and thought provoking, I think it is
wrong, and very dangerous, to use these studies to justify blanket
statements about intelligence, group or otherwise.
I'm laughing a bit about this thread. For example, there's also
At 11:19 AM 3/12/2013, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
At 07:56 AM 3/12/2013, Dan Harkins wrote:
While these studies are interesting and thought provoking, I think it is
wrong, and very dangerous, to use these studies to justify
I'm not sure I have enough data to evaluate the comments in this letter. I
don't disagree with the general goal diversity is good. I do believe that
the proposed actions are not realistic in that they would tend to make the
Nomcom process even more moribund. I will note that Appendix A
work with
out much additional benefit.
Mike
--
Eric
From: Michael StJohns [mailto:mstjo...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:06 PM
To: Eric Gray; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications
Importance: High
At 05:27 PM 3/7/2013, Eric Gray wrote
in choosing the leadership of the IETF. Rather
than defining precise rules for how to define affiliation, the
IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the
participants to make the process work.
From: Michael StJohns [mailto:mstjo...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday
In addition, check the plenary section of the proceedings for each March
meeting since about 2004. There are at least a few slides Bout the NOMCOM and
sometimes process issues. Mike
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 8, 2013, at 17:23, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
I posted a
At 05:27 PM 3/7/2013, Eric Gray wrote:
In addition to trying to guess what the talent-set requirement is for a
complete slate, the NomCom
also has to try to figure out balance on a lot of different dimensions.
Company-mix, representation
by regions, extra skills and/or tools each AD might bring
At 08:50 AM 3/6/2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
I didn't want to imply that we necessarily couple the actions we take.
I agree of course that right now we have an issue to solve. I agree that we
should do whatever to complete the current process, and that waiting for a
reorganisation would be a bad
At 07:38 AM 3/3/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Under the IETF role it is very easy of WG chairs to ignore
minority participants of large communities.
I've come to the conclusion - possibly wrong - that you're lacking some basic
understanding in the operational model of the IETF.
Unlike most
At 11:04 PM 2/8/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
The problem is that most people don't complain or don't like to
complain, that is reality, they will leave such society easily.
Are we talking about the same IETF?
Seriously, this group as a whole does not tend to shy away from making their
issues
Per Olafur's email, I submitted my signature directly to him, along with my
Nomcom eligibility status. I'm sure other's did as well, so you shouldn't take
the absence of emails on this list as lack of support for the proposal.
Mike
At 06:25 AM 11/1/2012, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
Hello,
I am
using the same random selection process and same constraints on number members
from the same organization/company. Also, stick the current nomcom PAST
chair as the recall chair.
Mike
Russ
On Nov 1, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
At 06:01 PM 11/1/2012, Bob Hinden wrote:
While
I've read the draft. I think its the wrong approach, mainly because its
focusing on the current problem rather than a new mechanism.
In general, I know of 5 ways an elected or appointed position may become
vacant: resignation, death, incapacity, recall or expulsion.
We currently have
At 11:02 AM 10/26/2012, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 10/26/12 4:29 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
I'm using expulsion here the way its used in the US political system - a
legislative body may choose to expel one of its members for various reasons.
I propose that we define such a mechanism
At 11:39 AM 10/26/2012, John C Klensin wrote:
In principle, I have no problem with setting up a list of
repeated/ long-term non-feasance, non-appearance, or
non-responsiveness conditions that are treated as equivalent to
a more formal resignation unless the body of which that person
is a member
At 08:53 AM 10/25/2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can change
any/all policy/procedures, right?
Actually, that's my point here.
Once upon a time, we did everything by group hum. Then we became a standards
body with formal procedures and
At 03:46 AM 10/25/2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote:
...
... Nothing in the text suggests an
unfettered right of creating new definitions of vacant.
You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com?
1: not occupied by an incumbent,
At 05:08 PM 10/25/2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
don't think that these are in any way analogous, since in each
case that you mentioned the individual who left was either incapacitated
or had pre-arranged an absence. If someone simply disappeared from
work without notice or comment I expect it would
Wait just one minute.
Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the
position). He apparently *has* abrogated his responsibilities.
I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be
followed.
Get a petition signed. Run a 1 week call for
petition, and requesting Marshall's views on
the matter. It may not get any response which is a good datum in and of itself.
Later, Mike
At 02:42 PM 10/23/2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning
At 05:55 PM 10/23/2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Oct 23, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
Wait just one minute.
Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the
position).
I don't see anything in BCP 10 that says those are the only
Yes but -
The process you refer to deals with temporary incapacity where the office
holder might not want to go away for a while. And even then there's a process
and a defined group of people who run that process. (cf 25th amendment).
I agree with you that removing him would be the
Below
At 07:44 PM 8/17/2012, Michael StJohns wrote:
Read section 10, 3rd paragraph of RFC3777.
The prior year's Chair may select a designee from a pool composed
of the voting
volunteers of the prior year's committee and all
prior Chairs if the Chair is unavailable
The advisor is the Immediately previous chair, or a member of the previous
noncom designated by that chair if he/she declines to serve or is otherwise
unavailable.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 17, 2012, at 12:09, John C Klensin j...@jck.com wrote:
--On Friday, August 17, 2012 10:05 -0400
iPad
On Aug 17, 2012, at 15:36, John C Klensin j...@jck.com wrote:
--On Friday, August 17, 2012 15:30 -0400 Michael StJohns
mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
The advisor is the Immediately previous chair, or a member of
the previous noncom designated by that chair if he/she
declines to serve
Glen and others -
I wanted to go back and comment on the assertion that Glen made that the IETF
and IAB chairs do not 'represent' [him] or any one other than themselves. I
believe he is correct with respect to himself, and incorrect with respect to
the IETF.
I agree the IETF is not a
I reported both when I volunteered.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 1, 2012, at 22:10, Yoshihiro Ohba yoshihiro.o...@toshiba.co.jp wrote:
What is the exact definition of affiliation in IETF?
If a consultant who runs his/her own consulting company X is paid by his/her
customer company Y for
At 10:30 AM 4/24/2012, David Morris wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
However as much as I appreciate the benefits of privacy and the detriments of
eroding it, I think there is an odd conceptual confusion taking place here:
This is an entirely public event. It makes no sense to
The pre-pay is pretty annoying. And the if you cancel too late, we'll take
all your money *really* annoys me. So much so that I booked on-line, direct
with the hotel at a higher rate for a nicer room, but still better than the
rate for the alternate hotel. And no-prepay and cancel by 4pm the
Hi Andy -
As I said elsewhere - it seems silly to move a superseded document to
Historic when you don't move the Standard to Historic. In the case of
three of these RFCs, the new entry will read Obsoleted by Status:
Historic. If I happen to read that entry and not notice the Obsoleted
I would suggest that the pre-IETF RFCs that weren't adopted as Internet
standards (I.e. the first four you listed) are not properly the purview of the
IETF for the purpose of declaring them historical.
For the other three - a quick check indicates these were properly superseded as
you note.
Hi Bob -
I actually think that delegating this to a co-chair or executive vice chair
would work. The similar military model is commander/executive officer where
the commander (chair) is responsible for strategic thinking and the XO
(co-chair) is responsible for tactical execution. Also the
The INARC - Internet Architecture Task Force and the IAB were never the same
thing.
The INARC was what was left of the Gateway Algorithms and Data Structures group
after the IETF (actually the INENG at the time) was created halfway through the
GADS meeting. Both GADS and INARC were chaired
I've been watching this with interest. I'm especially in agreement with
Leslie's comments about chair load.
Because of the legal issues with respect to the IETF trust and the implementing
documents for the IAOC, its going to be pretty difficult to come up with a way
to remove some of the
Hi Dave -
Mostly I think 2119 works well. But there are some interesting places where I
believe it doesn't and the interpretation of SHOULD is smack dab in the
middle of those places.
There are at least two different classes of things where SHOULD can be
applied: behavior and feature.
Hi folks -
I just reserved with the hotel and was quite surprised at the cancellation
policy.
Could you please confirm - Cancel before 1 Nov - no charge, 1-7 Nov 1 night,
after 7 Nov full amount?
Seriously? This is extreme. I can understand a 1 day fee up to the date of the
reservation and
Hi Ray -
See below
At 08:15 PM 8/22/2011, Ray Pelletier wrote:
On Aug 22, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Hi folks -
I just reserved with the hotel and was quite surprised at the cancellation
policy.
Could you please confirm - Cancel before 1 Nov - no charge, 1-7 Nov 1
At 08:30 PM 8/22/2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Guest Substitution: Guests may substitute names for reserved rooms without
penalty up to the event.
This sounds like a good use of the Attendees list. Anyone with reservations
who can't come should publicize it - I am sure that there will be
- do not be specific - see section 11 of the
same RFC
Scott
On Jun 22, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
At 11:42 AM 6/22/2011, Scott Brim wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:11, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
A quick couple of questions to the list based on a document I saw
A quick couple of questions to the list based on a document I saw recently.
If a document (an ID in this case) contains encumbered material (in this case
consists of 90%+ encumbered material), and the document is authored by the
organization (or members of the organization) that holds the
At 11:42 AM 6/22/2011, Scott Brim wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:11, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
A quick couple of questions to the list based on a document I saw recently.
If a document (an ID in this case) contains encumbered material (in this
case consists of 90
Why didn't you fly ORD-YQB? There's a 7pm flight that gets in around 10:23. It
had to be cheaper than a hotel and train ride.
Mike
At 12:20 PM 6/18/2011, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Here is what I am doing:
* Fly SFO-ORD and ORD-YUL, gets me to Montreal at 21:14
* Spend the night at the Hilton
At 04:45 AM 2/28/2011, Bob Hinden wrote:
Yoav,
Yes, but I think the nanobots are supposed to devour the entire earth, so
it's volume that counts. The volume is about 1x10^21 m^3. So 40% is 4 x
10^20 m^3.
But they start from the outside and eat down. This causes the surface area to
Fred said:
Personally, call me stuck-in-the-mud, but this isn't an academic conference in
which grad students are advertising for a professor that might be interested
in mentoring them or a sponsor might fund their research.
Ted said:
But you have to bring your own
engineering talent. It's
At 07:51 AM 11/18/2010, RJ Atkinson wrote:
IESG Folks,
The IETF already has taken MUCH MUCH too long handling this document.
Each time this I-D gets revised, new and different issues are raised.
While I am generally OK with the way IETF processes work,
this document is an exception.
At 11:19 PM 11/11/2010, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Mike,
(Why doesn't your email client display your name by the way?)
Because It sent it via the annoying Comcast web client.
I know you asked the question of Ray, but:
Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask. And editing my email to remove
the
Standards and the manner in which
they are implemented.
Avygdor Moise
- Original Message - From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net
To: Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com; Avygdor Moise a...@fdos.ca
Cc: Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com; Jonathan Brodkin
jonathan.brod...@fdos.ca; IETF
to the
problem and as a possible starting point for a discussion on a creation of an
IETF standard
Context.
Mike
At 05:48 AM 10/26/2010, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi -
I'm confused about this approval.
As I read
] On Behalf Of
ext Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:49 AM
To: Michael StJohns
Cc: i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Document Action: 'ANSI C12.22, IEEE 1703 and MC12.22
TransportOver IP' to Informational RFC
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Michael StJohns mstjo
contributed to the
making of this RFC.
ANSI, NEMA, NIST, SGIP, MC, IEEE, IETF, AEIC and EEI are fully aware of this
effort and this RFC. The work was carried in plain view.
Avygdor Moise
- Original Message -
From: Michael StJohns
To: Avygdor Moise
Cc: ietf@ietf.org ; IESG IESG
Hi -
I'm confused about this approval.
As I read the draft and the approval comments, this document is an independent
submission describing how to do C12.22 over IP. But the document is without
context for who does this typical to an informational RFC.
Is this
a) A document describing how
Heh...
The TOS field was designed to mimic the DOD's message preemption scheme - lower
priority messages were only sent if there were no higher priority messages
waiting (a message in this case being more like an email than a packet).
Routine, Priority, Operational Immediate, Flash and Flash
Dave and I don't always agree :-)
I don't think we've got either the database of people not attending because of
costs nor a good model for factoring them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's times
some percentage who would still not attend because of other issues times some
percentage where the
Hi Marshall -
A method that works for any ratio using running totals:
Let NAp, Ep, Ap be the value of each regions part of the ratio (e.g. NAp = 1.7
for a 1.7:1:1)
Set NAt(0), Et(0), At(0) = 0
Set NAs= NAp/(NAp+Ep + Ap) (basically the decimal version of the ratio),
repeat for Es and As
Hi Ray -
I started to take this survey then bounced out of it on the second page. This
comes under the heading of bad survey design.
I object to the way gateway/secondary cities are defined here and specifically
equating Maastricht with Minneapolis seems somewhat stacking the deck.
What I'm
This is an application number for a patent application filed between 93 and 97
(that's what the 08 at the beginning indicates). The USPTO doesn't keep these
online prior to 2001 as near as I can tell, but Google has a patent which
points to the resultant patent and application.
US 5874938
Marshall -
I would suggest that given you've chosen the location based on the assumption
that Bob's 1/1/1 model is most correct and that its possible that a review of
the data relative to more persistent attendees or more active attendees may
suggest a different model, that you toll closing
Hi Bob -
A hallway conversation is NOT by default an IETF Session or even an IETF
Activity in any way, shape or form and to be clear, it's unclear whether or
not even a Bar BOF as semi-formal as it is should be considered an IETF
Session.
If we go more targeted to the definition -
At 12:35 PM 8/11/2010, Bob Hinden wrote:
While I can't speak for Marshall, I think he was pointing out that the IAD
sent out proposed dates for 2014-2017 to the community and no comments were
received. This was done twice and afterwards the IAOC adopted the dates.
Also, to your other query,
While personally I agree (as in I have no idea what I will be doing in 2017),
in order to schedule meetings and avoid conflicts with other organizations I
don't see any alternative to set these dates into the future. Once they are
published other organizations see them and make their
Andrew -
Interesting take but one that probably isn't supported by the black letter
reading of the Note Well.
In general, the Note Well describes the class of things that might be
contributions, but for them to become actionable contributions, they need to
make it into the IETF record. I
Sorry - forgot to add:
or portion thereof refers to things like design teams, not a random group of
people who happened to sit in the WG session.
Mike
At 02:40 PM 8/11/2010, Michael StJohns wrote:
Andrew -
Interesting take but one that probably isn't supported by the black letter
reading
of the work itself.
Bob
On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Fred said this much more eloquently than I could.
On the IETF78 attendees list there's been a lot of discussion about where to
meet - with the primary consideration seeming to be pretty and small.I
may
At 06:50 PM 8/6/2010, DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS) wrote:
Though interesting, what is the intent of the use of this data
Martin
Martin C. Dolly
Seems pretty obvious - same intent as the original data. Determining if a
1-1-1 model is appropriate.
___
Fred said this much more eloquently than I could.
On the IETF78 attendees list there's been a lot of discussion about where to
meet - with the primary consideration seeming to be pretty and small.I
may be in the minority, but I'd really rather the IETF go places where the
ability to get
At 09:05 AM 8/7/2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Noel;
On Aug 6, 2010, at 9:26 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com
I do note that it seems clear that registration is related to where
we meet. That show up pretty clearly the current data. So judging
where to have
Hmm... folding Australia into Asia, Africa into Europe and S America into N
America (for discussion purposes only) that's roughly
1/1/1.7 as a ratio. (Asia/Europe/NA). Or 4/4/7.
It will be interesting to see what the other runs of the data show.
Mike
At 07:49 PM 8/7/2010, Donald
Bob -
Would it be possible to get two additional version of this chart?
1) Including only those who were nomcom eligible (3 of 5 of the last meetings)
at each meeting.
2) Including only those who were one of WG chair, document editor or author for
a an active document at that meeting (e.g. WG
At 02:52 PM 7/1/2010, Russ Housley wrote:
No matter where a meeting is held, we are subject to the laws of that
location. Nothing new there.
Hi Russ -
I agree with the above statement, but its really beside the point. The issue
is not that the IETF and IETF attendees are required to obey the
I think its a good idea to readdress this. Part of the issue with the current
system, is that there is both no great benefit to advancing a standard to the
next level for the advocates, and no real downside to not advancing it. In
many cases, having gone through the pain of getting to RFC
It may be that there needs to be a separate document covering conflict of
interest for the IAOC and Trustees and this document would then just indicate
that members will comply with that policy at all times.
I found www.nonprofitrisk.org/advice/samples/ConflictPolicy.doc and others
googling
My $.02 worth.
1) For the purposes of the upcoming Nomcom, the decision to not count a day
pass as attending is reasonable and timely and within the purview of the IESG
(or for that matter the IETF chair) to decide.
2) The IESG/IAOC can choose whether or not to offer such a day pass as that is
Hi Ole -
Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well. I took the use of
boycott and what sort of message would we be sending in your recent
messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC.
I'm not all that bothered about it per se, but it has been hard to tell when
its Ole the
At 02:32 PM 10/11/2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the basis of
political or social concerns. We've sometimes challenged it for matters of
logistics and cost, but not social policy.
I think it is an extremely dangerous precedent for us
At 04:24 PM 10/5/2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Do you know if the PGP signing (and taking the keys home) was legal
when we did it in France? It is my understanding that there are (or
were) French laws forbidding the export of crypto. However, I don't
remember this being raised as a big
At 04:07 AM 10/7/2009, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
(Personal opinion)
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal
implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are treating
China unfairly in this discussion...
I
Michael StJohns mailto:mstjo...@comcast.netmstjo...@comcast.net
So no, we're not treating China unfairly in this discussion. We're not
holding China to a higher standard, we're questioning - as we must for due
diligence - whether the standard to which they want to hold the IETF is too
high or too
At 09:55 PM 10/8/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I think there is general agreement that no normal IETF topic should
have to be off limits for any IETF meeting in any location. We can
argue about the finer details of what normal implies and we
certainly need to establish that such speech would not
At 02:17 PM 9/23/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
BUT I am at a loss
to understand why such a statement would be a required part of our
technical discussion.
And I'm at a loss to understand why censoring such a statement (or ejecting an
individual who says it, or terminating the IETF meeting in
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
