Toerless, SM, and others who commented on the importance of recognising people
who made contributions: I fully agree, of course. Giving credit for
contributions, be it about being the developer of a major protocol, having your
name on the author list, or being mentioned in the acknowledgments
On 07/02/2013 07:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother
writing one...
i have never considered writng one. sour grapes make bad wine.
randy
I used to read the appeals for my own education. Some pretty hilarious
stuff in there. I feel this
On 7/2/13 6:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many
succeed?
My quick read of http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html:
Accepted: 6
Denied: 25
Withdrawn: 1
One appellant appealed 12 times and all of the appeals were
Jari, *:
Disclaimer: see signature (i do not know the details of this specific case).
To me the problem seems to be going back to the means the IETF has for
providing recognition
to participants contributing by review/feedback. As long as recognition for
that contribution
is primarily left to
On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
On 7/2/13 6:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many
succeed?
My quick read of http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html:
Accepted: 6
Denied:
--On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net wrote:
Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all
has appealed and ask yourself Do I really want to be part of
this club?
I am honored to be a member of that club. Remembering that
appeals, as
On 7/3/2013 9:32 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Interpret the above as you see fit.
As with most 'social' analyses, it's usually a good idea to look for a
bit more than an entirely trivial numbers game, such as by trying to
find some criterion that helps to distinguish amongst the appellants.
In
John == John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
Strong agreement.
I'm not currently a member of that club, although if I stick around the
IETF long enough it's bound to happen.
I've certainly received and reviewed appeals that I thought were a valid
contribution to the process.
Don't appeal
On Jul 3, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
As with most 'social' analyses, it's usually a good idea to look for a bit
more than an entirely trivial numbers game, such as by trying to find some
criterion that helps to distinguish amongst the appellants.
Yup. E.g.,
On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net wrote:
Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed and ask
yourself Do I really want to be part of this club?
Other than a*very* small
+1
And don't lets forget that plenty of people have proposed schemes that WGs
have turned down and then been proven right years later.
If people are just saying what everyone else is saying here then they are
not adding any value. Rather too often WGs are started by folk seeking a
mutual
On Jul 3, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
And don't lets forget that plenty of people have proposed schemes that WGs
have turned down and then been proven right years later.
If people are just saying what everyone else is saying here then they are not
C: does my appeal look more like the club of 3, or the club of 11?
I think there's a new club of one.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
On 07/03/2013 05:20 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
C: does my appeal look more like the club of 3, or the club of 11?
I think there's a new club of one.
Wait, so now instead of voting we're using clubs? I think I need to pay
more attention to this thread ...
Yeah, but we don't actually count the clubs, so it's okay.
On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
Wait, so now instead of voting we're using clubs? I think I need to pay more
attention to this thread ...
If you don't read ietf, you don't get to participate in the consensus... ;)
to Abdussalam Baryun regarding
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
The IESG has reviewed the appeal of Abdussalam Baryun dated June 19,
2013 on the subject of inclusion in the acknowledgments section of
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/baryun-2013-06-19.txt
Lloyd,
On Jul 2, 2013, at 4:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many
succeed?
Appeals are listed at:
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html
Bob
If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother
If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother
writing one...
i have never considered writng one. sour grapes make bad wine.
randy
...@ietf.org [ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of The IESG [i...@ietf.org]
Sent: 02 July 2013 23:24
To: abdussalambar...@gmail.com
Cc: ietf-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
The IESG has reviewed the appeal
On 03/07/2013 14:23, Russ Housley wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html
Every appeal ever submitted to the IESG and its response can be found here.
...since late 2002, that is. There were appeals earlier in history. The
first one I recall reached the IAB in 1995, and had presumably
On 7/2/2013 8:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/07/2013 14:23, Russ Housley wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html
Every appeal ever submitted to the IESG and its response can be found here.
...since late 2002, that is. There were appeals earlier in history. The
first one I recall
i have never considered writng one. sour grapes make bad wine.
Errors do happen, for everyone and for all organisations. We do not treat
appeals as sour grapes at the IESG, IAB or other places that receive them. We
consider them an opportunity to review whether something was missed. At the
The IESG has reviewed the appeal of Abdussalam Baryun dated June 19,
2013 on the subject of inclusion in the acknowledgments section of
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/baryun-2013-06-19.txt
This is a dispute about a matter in a working group. The same matter
24 matches
Mail list logo
