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...
Hello;
On Sep 1, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
(replying to multiple posts in one)
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
...
Therefore, I propose the following:
(1) Andrew's decision stands. Under RFC 3777, the only recourse
available
to anyone who disagrees with that decision would be to ask
Andrew to
reconsider or to file a dispute with the ISOC President. The
former
has already been done, and so far no reversal has been announced.
Given that it is now after the close of trading on August 31, I
would
submit that a reversal of this decision by either Andrew or
Lynn would
do more harm than good.
I will refrain from expressing an opinion except to say that it's
Andrew's
decision as far as I'm concerned.
Michael StJohns wrote:
...
Unless I'm mistaken, I'm reading an overwhelming consensus NOT to
reset from those posting on this list.
I haven't kept count, but I think it's more evenly split
(especially since
Jeff's message quoted above).
Not being perturbed by this, I haven't felt the need to comment, but
now I will :
I think it's Andrew's decision and his decision making so far does
not bother me. (To be clear, that's a
WFM on the reset.)
I suspect that others have also not felt the need to comment, so I
don't feel that the overwhelming consensus
claimed above exists in fact.
Regards
Marshall
Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
To address Eliot's comment about the volunteer list -
From Andrew's note that triggered all of this I see that he sent the
list of the volunteers to the Secretariat. If we could have someone
from the Secretariat provide a copy of that email independent of
Andrew and verify it was submitted to them prior to the selection
date
that should resolve Eliot's issue. Eliot?
Yes, that would have resolved my issue nicely. But I am equally
From ietf-bounces at ietf.org Fri Sep 01 09:59:03 2006
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1GJ9Rz-0000i4-IU; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:52:51 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GJ9Ry-0000hy-66
for ietf at ietf.org; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:52:50 -0400
Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GJ9Rw-00068r-RI
for ietf at ietf.org; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:52:50 -0400
Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1])
by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8)
with ESMTP id 4933973; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:52:46 -0400
In-Reply-To: <44F7F7FC.1030707 at zurich.ibm.com>
References: <198A730C2044DE4A96749D13E167AD37D3F257 at MOU1WNEXMB04.vcorp.ad.vrs n.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060831013017.03fbe300 at mindspring.com> <44F6920C.9010804 at zurich.ibm.com> <01M6MUFPNUXC0008CX at mauve.mrochek.com> <44F70DA3.2090503 at dcrocker.net>
<9DC65D878C8E9843D3829EB9 at sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
<44F7F7FC.1030707 at zurich.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <9D302E40-A74D-4591-BD3A-0B8DDE165EBB at multicasttech.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:52:45 -0400
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6ffdee8af20de249c24731d8414917d3
Cc: IETF-Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
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
Hello;
On Sep 1, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
(replying to multiple posts in one)
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
...
Therefore, I propose the following:
(1) Andrew's decision stands. Under RFC 3777, the only recourse
available
to anyone who disagrees with that decision would be to ask
Andrew to
reconsider or to file a dispute with the ISOC President. The
former
has already been done, and so far no reversal has been announced.
Given that it is now after the close of trading on August 31, I
would
submit that a reversal of this decision by either Andrew or
Lynn would
do more harm than good.
I will refrain from expressing an opinion except to say that it's
Andrew's
decision as far as I'm concerned.
Michael StJohns wrote:
...
Unless I'm mistaken, I'm reading an overwhelming consensus NOT to
reset from those posting on this list.
I haven't kept count, but I think it's more evenly split
(especially since
Jeff's message quoted above).
Not being perturbed by this, I haven't felt the need to comment, but
now I will :
I think it's Andrew's decision and his decision making so far does
not bother me. (To be clear, that's a
WFM on the reset.)
I suspect that others have also not felt the need to comment, so I
don't feel that the overwhelming consensus
claimed above exists in fact.
Regards
Marshall
Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
To address Eliot's comment about the volunteer list -
From Andrew's note that triggered all of this I see that he sent the
list of the volunteers to the Secretariat. If we could have someone
from the Secretariat provide a copy of that email independent of
Andrew and verify it was submitted to them prior to the selection
date
that should resolve Eliot's issue. Eliot?
Yes, that would have resolved my issue nicely. But I am equally
satisfied with rerunning the selection algorithm.
I believe there were some mail delivery glitches at the Secretariat
on the day in question, so this might not have been completely
straightforward.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 31 August, 2006 09:38 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc at zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
Full disclosure: My personal opinion, which I *did* give to
Lynn and
Andrew when I became aware of this glitch, is that a reset is
the only
way to be certain that the selection process is unbiased.
Brian,
I don't know about others, but I'd like to hear a little more
about your reasoning (and Andrew's) about this. It seems to me
that drawing a second sample would be unbiased if the decision
to draw it were made before anyone knew the contents of the
first sample.
I was much more concerned about the failure to announce the volunteer
list before the relevant market closing than about the presence of
an ineligible name. I don't see how one can remove the theoretical
presence of bias unless the list is announced in advance. I completely
agree that an extra name in the list doesn't create bias.
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 8/31/06 at 9:38 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Full disclosure: My personal opinion, which I *did* give to Lynn
and Andrew when I became aware of this glitch, is that a reset is
the only way to be certain that the selection process is unbiased.
Brian, the fact that Andrew Cc'ed you on the issue was (IMO) not a
good idea in the first place,
He didn't. It was a person who noticed the anomaly who cc'ed me.
but given that your position is one of those being selected, the
fact that you expressed an opinion at all was phenomenally
irresponsible.
I disagree. My concern was to ensure that there is neither bias nor
appearance of potential bias in the process. I believe it would
have been irresponsible not to.
Now, in addition to questions about Andrew's motivations for doing
the reset (the theoretical "Did he want a 'do-over' because he
didn't like the outcome?"), we also have to contend with whether
*you* influenced the process deliberately because *you* didn't
like the outcome. Unbelievably ill-advised on your part.
Actually, I don't recall even looking at the list of selected
volunteers.
Brian
_______________________________________________
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.
