Lloyd,
On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
I do recall a case where both chairs of a WG belonged to a Major Organization.
World domination was thwarted, however, because the chairs couldn't actually
agree on anything; the organization was big enough that competing views
On 7/10/2013 8:52 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
I do recall a case where both chairs of a WG belonged to a Major Organization.
...
I can think of one company who uses to IETF to have internal arguments. But at
the same time, I can think of
--On Saturday, July 06, 2013 14:53 -0700 NomCom Chair 2013
nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org wrote:
I am pleased to announce that we have 140 qualified
individuals who have generously volunteered to serve as
voting members of this year's Nomcom.
Allison,
Given my previous comment about
I find the presumption that IETF attendees employed by companies that send
large number of attendees are robots to be somewhat distasteful. It also
doesn't match my experience. I am sure that _some_ attendees from large
companies are just as partisan as you fear, but some are not. So I am
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
if one wanted to minimize
the odds of organizations trying to game the nomcom selection
process, it would be rational to do a two step draw, first
randomly selecting two volunteers from any organization offering
more than
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 13:49 + Ted Lemon
ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
I find the presumption that IETF attendees employed by
companies that send large number of attendees are robots to be
somewhat distasteful. It also doesn't match my experience.
I am sure that _some_ attendees
(2) Four companies account for 44.3% of the volunteers.
OK, but what would X be in Four companies account for X% of
people eligible to volunteer?
That said, the not more than two from the same employer rule
was written in anticipation of a theoretical problem; it seems
that it was a good idea,
Should we consider changing it to not more than one in view
of today's data?
On it's face, that sounds like an absolutely Draconian rule.
However stepping back a bit, it should prompt a simple question: Is the
IETF so reliant on a tiny number of companies that we cannot produce
viable
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Should we consider changing it to not more than one in view
of today's data?
On it's face, that sounds like an absolutely Draconian rule.
However stepping back a bit, it should prompt a simple question: Is the
IETF so
On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a
few megacorporations?
(That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?)
I don't know the answer to that question, but it's an interesting
On Jul 10, 2013, at 12:07 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
wrote:
On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a
few megacorporations?
(That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a
At 06:49 09-07-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
I find the presumption that IETF attendees employed by companies
that send large number of attendees are robots to be somewhat
distasteful. It also doesn't match my experience. I am sure that
_some_ attendees from large companies are just as partisan
On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a
few megacorporations?
(That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?)
!
From: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
Sent: 08 July 2013 08:55
To: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk; ietf@ietf.org; noncom-chair-2...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Gah. Am idiot misspelling it, sorry.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood
On 7/9/2013 8:59 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
The sample is better at 140 if individuals represent themselves, but
not if they are swayed by their organizational affiliation, and
organization is now a significant factor in what we can expect from
volunteers -- not all, but even some of those from
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
- I'm not sure we can even know what the 10 voting members *were*
guided by, unless the behavior is so bad that the advisor freaks out
or the chair tells us in the plenary Nomcom report
and Yoav Nir wrote:
how much can a nomcom member (or a pair of them) do to
On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Spencer Dawkins spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 7/9/2013 8:59 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
The sample is better at 140 if individuals represent themselves, but not if
they are swayed by their organizational affiliation, and organization is now
a significant
Hi John,
Excuse me for replying to just part of your message below:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
...
(3) It is probably too late to even discuss it for this year
(see below) but it occurs to me that, if one wanted to minimize
the odds of
Hi Brian,
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
(2) Four companies account for 44.3% of the volunteers.
OK, but what would X be in Four companies account for X% of
people eligible to volunteer?
That said, the not more than two from the same
...@dcrocker.net]
Sent: 09 July 2013 21:53
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Should we consider changing it to not more than one in view
of today's data?
On it's face, that sounds like an absolutely Draconian rule.
However
On 7/9/2013 5:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
I do recall a case where both chairs of a WG belonged to a Major Organization.
World domination was thwarted, however, because the chairs couldn't actually
agree on anything; the organization was big enough that competing views
were widespread
On 7/9/2013 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into
a few megacorporations?
(That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?)
I don't know the answer to
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 19:43 -0400 Donald Eastlake
d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi John,
Excuse me for replying to just part of your message below:
No problem.
I found your explanation helpful.Two observations at the
risk of repeating myself
(1) I did not make a proposal. I did
Subject: RE: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Thread-Topic: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Thread-Index: Ac56k3eMACmjfPaISkGziW3QAHNMiwAAHRGQ
Message-ID: 290e20b455c66743be178c5c84f12408223f494...@exmb01cms.surrey.ac.uk
References: 20130706215330.8850.38261.idtrac...@ietfa.amsl.com
Subject: RE: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Email to noncom-chair-2...@ietf.org appears to fail - bounce below.
Dears;
I am just wondered why there is any names from Arab world, no volunteers or no
acceptance for Arab people.
Thanks for giving chance to ask.
Sama Kareem
On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:53:30 -0700, NomCom Chair 2013 wrote
I am pleased to announce that we have 140 qualified individuals who
Dear Sama Kareem,
Anybody who has attended three out of the past five IETFs is eligible and
has been encouraged (a lot) to volunteer for the nomcom. While there are a
number of IETF participants who rarely attend in-person meetings, the
present consensus (and one that I'd tend to support) is
--On Sunday, July 07, 2013 19:50 +0300 0
skar...@science.alquds.edu wrote:
I am just wondered why there is any names from Arab world, no
volunteers or no acceptance for Arab people.
Thanks for giving chance to ask.
Keeping in mind that people have to volunteer their own names
(no one
28 matches
Mail list logo
