Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
Also, in my opinion, IESG review that raises a certain number of issues
should not result in the document sitting in the IESG's queue for a
few months while the authors go back and forth with the AD or the
GEN-ART reviewer pounding the document into
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
by the IESG does serve a purpose.
IMHO, if the IESG members sticks to their own criteria at
Ray
Expert as the IETF (and its allied organisations) is in Internet
Engineering, I doubt if many of those skills transfer into Social
Engineering, which is the field in which I think this question lies.
Lacking such expertise, into how to frame a question in order to get the
answer which is
Reply to below message
The subject SHOULD be: Evaluating Review Process Performance
I prefer the Subject is: Evaluating WG input, the WG review process,
and the WG output, NOT IESG review.
Hi Joe,
My
On 4/12/2013 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
by the IESG does serve a purpose.
Brian,
Of course it serves a
On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
by the IESG does serve a
On 12/04/2013 14:17, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review,
On 4/12/2013 12:49 AM, SM wrote:
At 13:46 11-04-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
If the IAB means members, the number for females, as far as I
know(*), is 2/15, or 13 percent. If it means voting members, the
number for females is 1/13, or just under 8 percent.
If I use the 13% I can say that the
On 4/8/13 13:45 , John Curran wrote:
On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:06 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
3. Regarding Public WHOIS in section 4; The constituencies and stakeholders
for Public WHOIS are much broader than just the technical community, a number
of constituencies in civil society
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
by the IESG does serve a purpose.
I'm currently seeing a document with some serious
Dear Ray,
Outcomes, good or bad, are often influenced by groups sharing a common
interest. Important questions should attempt to measure whether these
interests reflect those of the larger Internet communities.
No gender, sexual orientation, ethic, religious, or political background should
I have no interest in or knowledge of the technical details,
but there is a pretty complicated DISCUSS against this draft,
which doesn't look like rubber-stamping to me:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis/ballot/
I assume you've already let the IESG know about the defects
On Apr 12, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
I'm currently seeing a document with some serious defects in
IETF Last Call (rfc2560bis) and an apparent desire to have
it Rubberstamped by the IESG (recycling at Proposed Standard).
FWIW, I raised the same question during IESG
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I have no interest in or knowledge of the technical details,
but there is a pretty complicated DISCUSS against this draft,
which doesn't look like rubber-stamping to me:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis/ballot/
I assume you've already let
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:40:57PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
My own feeling is that if we were to find that the
numbers supported the notion that there's bias
present in the system we probably couldn't do anything
about it without tearing the organization apart, so,
we live with bias, and
On 4/12/2013 10:12 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
I still think that the IETF community at large has no intentional
diversity bias, so the process of discussing and analyzing
diversity in the context of leadership is to help better describe
diversity induced job qualifications as well as
On Apr 10, 2013, at 3:02 AM, Stefan Santesson ste...@aaa-sec.com wrote:
Nothing has changed in this regard.
The good response is pretty clear that it by default provides information
that the cert is not on a black-list (is not know to be revoked).
However, it is also made clear that
On April 12, 2013 2:33:13 PM Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/12/2013 10:12 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
I still think that the IETF community at large has no intentional
diversity bias, so the process of discussing and analyzing
diversity in the context of leadership is to
On 4/12/2013 11:04 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
While I've been very reluctant to jump on this topic, I have to ask
what's the basis for this assertion?
I think the numbers are pretty compelling, which is why
I think they would deserve scrutiny if there's the
possibility of remediation if a problem
How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager about the
manager's decisions or performance? Only Owners/shareholders can question
managers and staff. IMO, the meeting/list discussions on any issue
without an I-D written is the staff talking/working.
If you write an I-D and to
Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was followed
and the document reached consensus in the WG and in the IETF LC and it
was successfully reviewed by the Gen-ART. If it wasn't then this
particular process
On 4/12/2013 11:28 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and
change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something wrong
in our process because that means that the document had a serious
problem and we didn't spot it in the
I just change the subject because I still beleive the problem with review
is in the WG not IESG. Some WGs have few reviews on each WG document, that
may not be bad, but I think having only one review or comment (excluding
authors) within a WGLC is wrong in a WG review process. I think WG chair
can
Hi Spencer,
At 07:38 12-04-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I was just checking the math.
I understand. :-)
I couldn't possibly say what good means, and I'm interested in
better understanding what diverse means, to this, ummm, at least
somewhat diverse community ...
There is an underlying
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:33:13AM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
address. As I said I think that looking at the pool of
nominees who've accepted their nominations and comparing
it to the pool of people selected would provide one
very rough measure of bias (explicit or otherwise) in
one stage
On 4/12/13 4:32 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 4/12/2013 11:28 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and
change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something wrong
in our process because that means that the document had a
On 4/12/13 4:58 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I just change the subject because I still beleive the problem with
review is in the WG not IESG. Some WGs have few reviews on each WG
document, that may not be bad, but I think having only one review or
comment (excluding authors) within a WGLC is
At 02:11 PM 4/12/2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
And I don't know if you intended to or not, but what you
communicated is The best candidates are nearly always
western white guys, since that's who's being selected.
That's a problematic suggestion.
I respect you, Melinda. I think you are smarter and
- Original Message -
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM
Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was
followed
and the document reached consensus in the
On Apr 12, 2013, at 4:01 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Let's take IAOC members as an example. NomCom chose two men from the United
States. The IAB chose a man from the United States. The IESG chose a man
from the United States. The ISOC Board of Trustees chose a man from the
United
On 4/12/13 5:52 PM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM
Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was
followed
and
--On Friday, April 12, 2013 20:24 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager
about the manager's decisions or performance?
In most successful companies, yes.
Only
Owners/shareholders can question managers and
James == James Polk jmp...@cisco.com writes:
James The nomcom isn't randomly picking hats in a crowd. They are
James picking talent of those that have volunteered to serve. At
Volunteered, and who have employer/funding support.
The apparent bias that we are experiencing is the result
Hi Ted,
At 14:06 12-04-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
I'd like to take slight exception to one thing that this paragraph
implies: that only a person who looks like me and comes from the
same region can represent my interests. I
Let's see how many IETF participants (I'll exclude voting members of
+1 on for John's response.
I will argue with my manager if I think they are wrong and I've gotten positive
results from giving managers feedback on their performance. Of course,
disagreeing with management won't always get the decision changed, but I've
never felt I lost anything by raising
SM wrote:
Ted Lemon wrote:
So in fact you don't need to put some percentage of white males on
the IESG, the IAB or the IAOC to make me happy. I want people on
these bodies who feel strongly about open standards, rough consensus
and running code. That's the kool-aid I have drunk,
On Apr 12, 2013, at 7:32 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Thomas Narten mentioned that: we have the tendency to pick the people we
know and trust, which is understandable. How many IAB members feel strongly
about open standards, rough consensus and running code? To know the answer I
would
This dude's ready to ship. Thanks for addressing my earlier comments.
Barry
On Friday, April 12, 2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status
On 4/12/13 1:26 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
No argument from me, I'm just asking that a comment/position/question
that I don't understand be substantiated.
And I'm telling you that I think the numbers are highly suggestive
of bias. We can take a swing at getting a very rough handle on
that but I'm
Henry B. Hotz wrote:
Stefan Santesson ste...@aaa-sec.com wrote:
Nothing has changed in this regard.
The good response is pretty clear that it by default provides information
that the cert is not on a black-list (is not know to be revoked).
However, it is also made clear that
If you think security and congestion are arcane, you have... problems.
This was an actual ietf working geoup, and not some e.g. W3c thing?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.p.
On 4/12/2013 8:51 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 12, 2013, at 7:32 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Thomas Narten mentioned that: we have the tendency to pick the people we know and
trust, which is understandable. How many IAB members feel strongly about open
standards, rough consensus and
Hi, Brian,
On 04/10/2013 01:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
For simplicity sake (and because I'm not sure how one would tone that
one down), my suggestion would be to apply you proposed text, modulo
that sentence.
Would that be okay with you? -- If not, please do let me know, so that
we can
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 06:22:17PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
to be the best. Pretty much every organization that applauds
itself for its meritocratic reward structure (to the extent
that an I* gig is a reward) and yet only advances white
guys says the same thing.
Speaking only
Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 06:22:17PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
to be the best. Pretty much every organization that applauds
itself for its meritocratic reward structure (to the extent
that an I* gig is a reward) and yet only advances white
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced Addresses with IPv6
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)'
draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Duplicate Address Detection Proxy'
(draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-07.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ted Lemon.
A URL of this Internet
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: mif-arch...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif-arch-dt/current/maillist.html
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif-arch-dt
Purpose: This list is for the MIF Architecture Design
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: divers...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/maillist.html
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Purpose: The diversity design team will work on identifying
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status
Section'
draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt as Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
50 matches
Mail list logo
