Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

Mike,

As it happens the liaisons were both chosen some time ago,
by definition with no knowledge of the chosen volunteers.

We are not going to change the rules on the fly, are we?

    Brian

Michael StJohns wrote:
One of the things missing from this years list of volunteers is their association. That's one of the inputs into the selection algorithm as the number of voting members from a particular association is limited to two. I'd ask that the Nomcom chair include this in the list of volunteers.

Also, I note that last year there were actually 4 members (2 voting and 2 others) from one particular organization. I'd suggest that this year the liasons NOT be selected from any organization already represented by a voting member.

Later, Mike



At 09:31 PM 8/30/2006, Richard Shockey wrote:



This seems to be on the IETF NOMCOM web page but I do not see it in the
ietf at ietf.org archives.

I suggest that given the unique importance of this NOMCOM cycle that a
fuller explanation is in order.

First .. the instant there was a problem the IETF community should have been
notified in full on this list.

Second ...a complete explanation of why this go screwed up should have been
posted to the community.

Third .. the IETF community AS A WHOLE should have been consulted as to
possible remedies to this "problem" etc. Consultations to the IESG and IAB
are not sufficient on matters of such gravity. 
.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GIgxq-0008DS-PJ
	for ietf at ietf.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:27:50 -0400
Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GIguW-0003Qj-SO
	for ietf at ietf.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:24:27 -0400
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com
	(d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49])
	by mtagate2.de.ibm.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k7V7ONGg118296
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:24:23 GMT
Received: from d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com
	[9.149.165.212])
	by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/NCO v8.1.1) with
	ESMTP id k7V7ScU73203254
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:28:38 +0200
Received: from d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP
	id k7V7ON1Y019049
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:24:23 +0200
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232])
	by d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP
	id k7V7OMsW019043; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:24:23 +0200
Received: from zurich.ibm.com ([9.4.210.83])
	by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA71168;
	Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:24:22 +0200
Message-ID: <44F68EA6.5020707 at zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:24:22 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns at mindspring.com>
References: <001d01c6cc9d$33919af0$23f0a544 at cis.neustar.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060831002544.03ea0768 at mindspring.com>
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060831002544.03ea0768 at mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2ed806e2f53ff1a061ad4f97e00345ac
Cc: 'IETF-Discussion' <ietf at ietf.org>, richard at shockey.us
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

Mike,

As it happens the liaisons were both chosen some time ago,
by definition with no knowledge of the chosen volunteers.

We are not going to change the rules on the fly, are we?

    Brian

Michael StJohns wrote:
One of the things missing from this years list of volunteers is their association. That's one of the inputs into the selection algorithm as the number of voting members from a particular association is limited to two. I'd ask that the Nomcom chair include this in the list of volunteers.

Also, I note that last year there were actually 4 members (2 voting and 2 others) from one particular organization. I'd suggest that this year the liasons NOT be selected from any organization already represented by a voting member.

Later, Mike



At 09:31 PM 8/30/2006, Richard Shockey wrote:



This seems to be on the IETF NOMCOM web page but I do not see it in the
ietf at ietf.org archives.

I suggest that given the unique importance of this NOMCOM cycle that a
fuller explanation is in order.

First .. the instant there was a problem the IETF community should have been
notified in full on this list.

Second ...a complete explanation of why this go screwed up should have been
posted to the community.

Third .. the IETF community AS A WHOLE should have been consulted as to
possible remedies to this "problem" etc. Consultations to the IESG and IAB
are not sufficient on matters of such gravity. 
.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GIgxq-0008DS-PJ
	for ietf at ietf.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:27:50 -0400
Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GIguW-0003Qj-SO
	for ietf at ietf.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:24:27 -0400
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com
	(d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49])
	by mtagate2.de.ibm.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k7V7ONGg118296
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:24:23 GMT
Received: from d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com
	[9.149.165.212])
	by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/NCO v8.1.1) with
	ESMTP id k7V7ScU73203254
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:28:38 +0200
Received: from d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP
	id k7V7ON1Y019049
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:24:23 +0200
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232])
	by d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP
	id k7V7OMsW019043; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:24:23 +0200
Received: from zurich.ibm.com ([9.4.210.83])
	by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA71168;
	Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:24:22 +0200
Message-ID: <44F68EA6.5020707 at zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:24:22 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns at mindspring.com>
References: <001d01c6cc9d$33919af0$23f0a544 at cis.neustar.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060831002544.03ea0768 at mindspring.com>
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060831002544.03ea0768 at mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2ed806e2f53ff1a061ad4f97e00345ac
Cc: 'IETF-Discussion' <ietf at ietf.org>, richard at shockey.us
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

Mike,

As it happens the liaisons were both chosen some time ago,
by definition with no knowledge of the chosen volunteers.

We are not going to change the rules on the fly, are we?

    Brian

Michael StJohns wrote:
One of the things missing from this years list of volunteers is their association. That's one of the inputs into the selection algorithm as the number of voting members from a particular association is limited to two. I'd ask that the Nomcom chair include this in the list of volunteers.

Also, I note that last year there were actually 4 members (2 voting and 2 others) from one particular organization. I'd suggest that this year the liasons NOT be selected from any organization already represented by a voting member.

Later, Mike



At 09:31 PM 8/30/2006, Richard Shockey wrote:



This seems to be on the IETF NOMCOM web page but I do not see it in the
ietf at ietf.org archives.

I suggest that given the unique importance of this NOMCOM cycle that a
fuller explanation is in order.

First .. the instant there was a problem the IETF community should have been
notified in full on this list.

Second ...a complete explanation of why this go screwed up should have been
posted to the community.

Third .. the IETF community AS A WHOLE should have been consulted as to
possible remedies to this "problem" etc. Consultations to the IESG and IAB
are not sufficient on matters of such gravity.


*********************
From: Andrew Lange <andrew.lange at alcatel.com>
To: IETF Announcement
Date: August 30, 2006
Subject: NomCom 2006/07: Selection Process Reset

A few members of the community have expressed concern over two issues with
the selection process for this year's NomCom.

First: The list of volunteers was published later than recommended by RFC
3777.  This happened because, after the nominations period closed, there
was some dispute on the eligibility of a number of NomCom volunteers.
They were not on the secretariat's list, but they had attended the
requisite number of IETF's.  I chose to provide the secretariat some time
to look into their eligibility because I was concerned about (in no
particular order):

1) Disenfranchisement.  I wanted to be sure that every voice that was
willing to be heard, was heard.  I didn't want an administrative snafu to
prevent someone who wanted to from serving.

2) Representation.  In order to ensure that the NomCom is representative
of the community we need the largest possible body of eligible
individuals.

I believe that these are fundamental to the entire process of the IETF
and NomCom.

This resulted in the list being sent to the secretariat later than I
would have liked, and the message then got hung up in the secretariat's
queue.

The selection is still deterministic, because the list ordering algorithm
used (alpha by first name) is deterministic.  However, since the list was
published late, the appearance is not ideal.

Second: A sitting member of the IAB's name appeared on the candidate
list. According to 3777, section 15, sitting IAB, IESG and ISOC members
are not eligible to serve on the Nomcom. This was an oversight on my
part. Ordering in the list does matter for the selection process.
Although this person was not selected to serve, and the harm done is
minimal, it is important that the IETF follow our own processes as closely
as possible.

For these reasons, and after consultation with members of the IAB, IESG
and ISOC, I have decided that to remove any doubt from the proceedings we
must re-run the selection algorithm with new seed information.

This is unfair to the people who volunteered for NomCom and are the
backbone of the process.  These people rightfully believed that they were
or were not selected, and everyone selected was preparing to serve.  To
the volunteers:  Thank you for volunteering, for your patience and
understanding.  I apologize for any inconvenience this reset may cause.

In order to close this issue quickly, the same stocks and procedure will
be used as last time, but the trading date will be drawn from the
September 1, 2006 Wall Street Journal which reports the the sales figures
from the previous trading day - August 31, 2006. The list we will use is
the same as before, but with the IAB member's name removed. The list will
be sent in a separate mail.

Thank you.

Andrew



Richard Shockey
Director, Member of the Technical Staff
NeuStar
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org
sip:5651(at)neustarlab.biz
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.