The archives of the NomCom WG that generated RFC 3777 are now online:
http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:38 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote:
Call me an idealist:), I personally believe, generally speaking, it
is better to put everything on the table, rather than partial info,
between nomcom and confirming body.
Step up a
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:38:20PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
It sounds like you would rather get rid of the nomcom and have the
confirming body do the work from the start.
It's interesting to note that this would mean reverting our processes
back to the pre-1993 days, back when the IAB *did*
than it actually is would
appear to be the worst of all cases.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Steven M. Bellovin
Sent: Mon 17/03/2008 10:08 PM
To: Christian Huitema
Cc: 'Fred Baker'; Dan Wing; 'IETF Discussion'
Subject: Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing
On Mon
The inner comment, does not match my memory of the discussions.
Theodore Tso wrote:
Attributed to Fred Baker:
I have heard it said that the IETF, in the most recent discussion
that failed up update that portion of what we now call 3777, had a
90/10 consensus and didn't come to a perfect
a liability.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Theodore Tso
Sent: Mon 17/03/2008 11:52 PM
To: Steven M. Bellovin
Cc: Christian Huitema; 'Fred Baker'; Dan Wing; 'IETF Discussion'
Subject: Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 02:08:15AM +
the objectors are or even the
grounds for the objection.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Fred Baker
Sent: Tue 18/03/2008 2:38 AM
To: Lixia Zhang
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing
On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote
Theodore Tso wrote:
To quote from Christian Huitema's, Network Protocols and Standards
as to what happened:
We thought that our wording was very careful, and we were
prepared to discuss it and try to convince the Internet
community. ...
The IAB had no right to
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 08:24:39AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
This wasn't about careful wording or reporters getting ahold of the story.
This was about a premature and preemptive decision by the IAB.
I quoted Christian's story because it was the kindest towards the IAB.
There were of course
Web Consortium.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Theodore Tso
Sent: Tue 18/03/2008 2:02 PM
To: Dave Crocker
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 08:24:39AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
This wasn't about careful
Yep, they didn't even know how to spell FOREWORD.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Agreeing with Brian's dislike of
http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-07-23-nomcom.html, it was drafted,
as far as I know, before RFC 3777 was published. RFC 3777 defines the
process, with the consensus of the IETF community as a whole. I suggest
that the IAB at least review its
I believe that it's appropriate for the confirming bodies to ask for
additional information if they have reason to doubt that due proces
has been followed or that some of the proposed appointees are suitable.
Isn't one of the roles of the liaisons to ensure that due process is
followed to the
] on behalf of Ralph Droms
Sent: Sun 16/03/2008 9:16 PM
To: Michael StJohns
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Michael StJohns wrote:
[...]
Put another way, the Nomcom is a search committee, but the hiring
authority resides in the confirming bodies
On 3/16/2008 7:36 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
My apologies, I was going to leave this alone, but this ...
chastisement .. is off-target.
At 09:50 PM 3/16/2008, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Mike, whatever your personal opinion, based on the public
information many people have concluded in good
Fred Baker wrote:
are confidential to the nomcom. For example, every question including
a new do you have anything else you would like to add question
needs to have two slots, one confidential to the nomcom and one
confidential to the nomcom plus the confirming body.
How about
There is an expectation that the information provided to the
nominating committee is confidential. The confirming body
needs some
information to determine whether the candidate fits the stated
requirements.
There is a simple solution to that. The nomcom asks the candidates a
And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under
it.
I accept the nomination of area director. The current area
director, Mr. J. Sixpack, has been attempting to impose his
opinion that beer should contain rice.
And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under
it.
I accept the nomination of area director. The current area
director, Mr. J. Sixpack, has been attempting to impose his
opinion that beer should contain rice.
And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under
it.
I accept the nomination of area director. The current area
director, Mr. J. Sixpack, has been attempting to impose his
opinion that beer should contain
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:44:49 -0700
Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under
it.
I accept the nomination of area director. The current area
director, Mr. J.
On Mar 17, 2008, at 8:08 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Try this one, quite non-hypothetical: a candidate for the IESG is
contemplating switching jobs. His or her current employer does not
yet
know this. It has a clear bearing on whether or not that person can
do
the job of AD, but
Christian Huitema wrote:
And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under
it.
I accept the nomination of area director. The current area
director, Mr. J. Sixpack, has been attempting to impose his
opinion that beer
On Mar 17, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:44:49 -0700
Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under
it.
I accept the nomination of
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 02:08:15AM +, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Try this one, quite non-hypothetical: a candidate for the IESG is
contemplating switching jobs. His or her current employer does not yet
know this. It has a clear bearing on whether or not that person can do
the job of AD,
I'm
unsure how the confirming body confirms the candidate without also being
apprised of this information.
This seems to go to the heart of a long-standing dilemma in the IETF:
Is it the job of a reviewing body to pre-empt lengthy and diligent work or
is it the job of a
At 07:18 PM 3/16/2008, Dave Crocker wrote:
I'm
unsure how the confirming body confirms the candidate without also being
apprised of this information.
This seems to go to the heart of a long-standing dilemma in the IETF:
Is it the job of a reviewing body to pre-empt lengthy and
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Michael StJohns wrote:
[...]
Put another way, the Nomcom is a search committee, but the hiring
authority resides in the confirming bodies.
Mike - I fundamentally and strongly disagree. In my opinoin, the Nomcom
is the hiring committee; the confirming body is the
I have misunderstood before, but one point of view I've heard expressed was
that
- NomCom is supposed to choose the best candidate, while
- the confirming body is supposed to make sure NomCom chose a good candidate
does this remotely map onto either Mike's or Ralph's point of view in this
:-)
This is a slight misquote of my
The Nomcom's goal should be to select the best qualified candidates from the
pool of volunteers. The confirming bodies should confirm any candidate they
believe to be fully qualified.
N.B.; Reasonable people can differ on whether any given candidate is
I know that when 3777 was being written, the question of what the
confirming bodies should do was discussed. No clear answer was available.
However, my perception of what happened included rulting out two
possible answers:
1) The confirming bodies are not supposed to be a rubber stamp. They
At 09:16 PM 3/16/2008, Ralph Droms wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Michael StJohns wrote:
[...]
Put another way, the Nomcom is a search committee, but the hiring authority
resides in the confirming bodies.
Mike - I fundamentally and strongly disagree. In my opinoin, the Nomcom is
the hiring
My apologies, I was going to leave this alone, but this ... chastisement .. is
off-target.
At 09:50 PM 3/16/2008, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Mike, whatever your personal opinion, based on the public information
many people have concluded in good faith that something went wrong.
I agree with this.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:31:24 -0700
Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I have misunderstood before, but one point of view I've heard
expressed was that
- NomCom is supposed to choose the best candidate, while
- the confirming body is supposed to make
Michael StJohns wrote:
Is it the job of a reviewing body to pre-empt lengthy and diligent work or
is it the job of a reviewing body to the work was done diligently and
competently?
I think you're missing a decide if before the work in the second line?
Yeah. See. We can start with
On 2008-03-17 14:16, Ralph Droms wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Michael StJohns wrote:
[...]
Put another way, the Nomcom is a search committee, but the hiring
authority resides in the confirming bodies.
Mike - I fundamentally and strongly disagree. In my opinoin, the Nomcom
is the
36 matches
Mail list logo
