Olafur Gudmundsson o...@ogud.com writes:
If you agree with this petition please either comment on this posting,
With regret, if you still need more signatures, you can add my name to
the list and I am nomcom eligible.
--
Wes Hardaker
SPARTA, Inc.
Yo, add my name, too. Now.
I'm NomCom eligible and shit according to RFC 3777, and the last time I
talked at Marshall was at the Philly plenary a few years ago and he was a
total dick. I don't give seven fucks if he blows his brains out because he
loses his title, I want him gone. The IETF
After a very brief consultation with the IESG, I have asked the Secretariat to
block the verywarmc...@gmail.com email address from further posting to this
mail list, and I have asked the Secretariat to delete the message from the mail
list archive so that searches will not bring it up.
On
Thank you Russ for the clarification and info.
I am Nomcom-eligible and you can add me to the signature list, i.e. I
support the recall.
Best regards, Tobias
On 04/11/12 09:15, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
Thanks for extra info.
You can add me to the list who sign the request for recall.
At 10:39 01-11-2012, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
As this never been attempted before, by collecting the signatures
myself, checking the NomCom eligibility and diversity in
organizations as required by RFC3777, I hoped to
There seems to be some misunderstanding about NomCom eligibility. It
Thanks for extra info.
You can add me to the list who sign the request for recall.
Bert
--On Saturday, 03 November, 2012 11:36 -0400 Russ Housley
hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
John:
I assume at this point the IAOC would like to pursue the
recall option? If not, please be very clear about
Thanks for the information to have a better decision.
I am Nomcom-eligible and you can add me to the signature list.
/Arturo Servin
On 04/11/2012 12:15, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
Thanks for extra info.
You can add me to the list who sign the request for recall.
Bert
Same here. I'm noncom-eligible and suppose the recall.
Jason Livingood
On 11/4/12 11:45 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the information to have a better decision.
I am Nomcom-eligible and you can add me to the signature list.
/Arturo Servin
On
-Discussion list
Subject: Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks
Thanks for extra info.
You can add me to the list who sign the request for recall.
Bert
--On Saturday, 03 November, 2012 11:36 -0400 Russ Housley
hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
John:
I assume at this point
suppose = support (if you were an auto-correct program)
G...
On 11/4/12 5:59 PM, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com
wrote:
Same here. I'm noncom-eligible and suppose the recall.
Jason Livingood
On 11/4/12 11:45 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
Olafur,
Add me to the signature list. I am NomCom elligible
--Alain
I have not signed the petition because I did not think it was proper to do so
(as a IAOC member - see Russ's message and RFC 3777)
but, that aside, I do support the petition - I feel that the IAOC has given
Marshal
the full opportunity to start participating again or to resign and he has done
On Nov 3, 2012, at 5:39 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
I have not signed the petition because I did not think it was proper to do
so (as a IAOC member - see Russ's message and RFC 3777)
but, that aside, I do support the petition - I feel that the IAOC has given
Marshal
the full
--On Thursday, 01 November, 2012 22:22 -0400 Michael StJohns
mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
I assume at this point the IAOC would like to pursue the
recall option? If not, please be very clear about it to the
list as I haven't actually seen a request from the IAOC for
that process to proceed
John:
I assume at this point the IAOC would like to pursue the
recall option? If not, please be very clear about it to the
list as I haven't actually seen a request from the IAOC for
that process to proceed as far as I can tell.
Because I am personally very reluctant to see this handled
I am NomCom-eligible and I sign this petition.
--Paul Hoffman
All,
Many tahanks for the clarification, the situation is clear enough.
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
John:
At the end of our visit, I believe that Marshall understood that there
were three possibilities:
1) Tell the community that he
Russ,
Thanks very much for the clarification.
Olafur,
Go ahead and add me to the signature list. I am Nomcom-eligible.
john
--On Saturday, 03 November, 2012 11:36 -0400 Russ Housley
hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
John:
I assume at this point the IAOC would like to pursue the
recall
On 01/11/2012 21:45, Sam Hartman wrote:
...
At this point, I believe the recall process is the correct process to
follow unless there is an approved BCP update.
In a case where there's been no contact and there's an argument we've
found a gap in the procedures I can see the argument for
I also, with regret, would like to add my name to the recall
petition. I am NomCom eligible.
Thanks,
Steve
Brian,
I would like to express my sadness as well, adding that I am most probably
not NomCom eligible.
I was only 23 when one of my freinds, community activist in the students
circle of the university, committed a suicide. Three years later it
happened again, by one other freind of us.
I feel
On 01/11/2012 19:43, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case pragmatism
doesn't prevail (see my other note).
My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting an
opinion
Hello,
I am glad to see that apparently there are no more supporters of this
proposal.
Please be more tolerant to Marshall Eubank.
Best,
Géza
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a
I am more concerned than disappointed about Marshall's disappearance from the
IETF. However, I agree that complete absence from an I* position for three
months without explanation should be grounds for recall. So, please consider
me to be one of the signers of this petition.
Marshall, if
On 10/31/2012 2:30 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I am more concerned than disappointed about Marshall's disappearance from the IETF.
However, I agree that complete absence from an I* position for three months without
explanation should be grounds for recall. So, please consider me to be one
On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:21 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson o...@ogud.com wrote:
Fellow IETF'rs
below is a recall petition that I plan on submitting soon if there is enough
support.
If you agree with this petition please either comment on this posting, or
send me email of support noting if you are
I am not NomCom qualified, but I do support the recall. I also suspect
that, given the total disappearance of Marshall Eubanks from all online
activity in early August, he is either ill, deceased, or otherwise unable
to fulfill his obligations. Whichever, the IAOC needs a functional member,
and so
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
On 11/1/2012 10:52 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
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.
(wearing no hat)
On 11/1/2012 11:08 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/1/2012 10:52 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
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
On 01/11/2012 14:08, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/1/2012 10:52 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
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
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case pragmatism
doesn't prevail (see my other note).
My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting an opinion
about Marshall's character.
Ditto, and Ditto.
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case
pragmatism doesn't prevail (see my other note).
My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as
reflecting an opinion about Marshall's character.
At 01:43 PM 11/1/2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case
pragmatism doesn't prevail (see my other note).
My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting
an opinion about
+1.
On 11/1/12 5:32 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case
pragmatism doesn't prevail (see my other note).
My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting an
opinion about Marshall's character.
I offer my signature to the recall petition. I am nomcom eligible.
At this point, I believe the recall process is the correct process to
follow unless there is an approved BCP update.
In a case where there's been no contact and there's an argument we've
found a gap in the procedures I can see the
Sam,
On Nov 1, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I offer my signature to the recall petition. I am nomcom eligible.
At this point, I believe the recall process is the correct process to
follow unless there is an approved BCP update.
In a case where there's been no contact and there's an
As a small point of procedures, no one is sending an actual signature.
It therefore would provide a modicum of better assurance for signatories to
send the email that declares their signature directly to the ISOC President
rather than to the person initiating the recall.
If you're concerned
On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:57 PM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
As a small point of procedures, no one is sending an actual signature.
It therefore would provide a modicum of better assurance for signatories to
send the email that declares their signature directly to the ISOC President
Mike,
A 3777 recall isn't dependent on the wishes of the IAOC...
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 1, 2012, at 19:22, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
mime-attachment.txt
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 05:45:11PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
found a gap in the procedures I can see the argument for creativity.
However, according to Bob's note, Marshall has been contacted and rather
than resigning, said he would consider resigning.
[…]
In my mind that moves us out of a
Mike:
As Joel already said, the recall process is not dependent on the wishes of the
IAOC.
Further, please note that IAB, IESG, and IAOC members cannot be recall petition
signers. RFC 3777 says:
1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are
qualified to be voting
On 10/31/12 1:21 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
Fellow IETF'rs
below is a recall petition that I plan on submitting soon if there is
enough support.
I regret having to do it this way, but since it seems to be necessary
and there is no agreed-upon alternative, I support this.
Melinda
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny keyboard.
On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:15 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/31/12 1:21 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
Fellow IETF'rs
below is a recall petition that I plan on submitting
44 matches
Mail list logo
