nomcom@conference.ietf.jabber.com - 2002/11/21
[06:54] %% hartmans has arrived.
[06:56] %% avri has arrived.
[06:57] * avri has changed the subject to: www.cdt.luth.se/babylon/ieitf55/ietf55-nomcom.{pdf,ppt}
[06:59] * avri has changed the subject to: http://www.cdt.luth.se/babylon/ietf55/nomcom-ietf55.pdf
[07:04] %% jhutz has arrived.
[07:04] %% mrose has arrived.
[07:11] <mrose> chair: we'll start in a few minutes
[07:16] %% carlberg has arrived.
[07:17] <mrose> eliot leer taking minutes
[07:17] <mrose> chair: welcome to the second meeting of the working group
[07:17] %% ietfwatch has arrived.
[07:17] <mrose> all - is there another scribe in the room?
[07:17] %% yone has arrived.
[07:18] %% hta has arrived.
[07:18] <mrose> agenda: state of draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-02, then the five open issues, then other open issues
[07:18] <mrose> chair: anything else to put on the agenda?
[07:18] <mrose> chair: none.
[07:18] <mrose> the "galv" - has just deafened us by dropping the mic on the floor
[07:19] <mrose> galvin: topic changes between -01 and -02; there are 8.
[07:19] <mrose> galvin: #1 - what about midcom vancancy near the start of the next nomcom
[07:20] <mrose> galvin: solution - the old nomcom has to overlap the new one by three months
[07:20] %% carlberg has left.
[07:21] <mrose> galvin: #2 - who gets to vote and when (terminology problem)
[07:21] %% avri has left.
[07:22] <mrose> galvin: solution - reworded for "voting volunteers", "liasisons", and "advisors", only the volunteers get to vote on candidates, everyone get to vote on other things
[07:22] <mrose> leer: is that how it works today?
[07:23] <mrose> don: my memory is a bit different - the old draft states that decisions are made only by the volunteers EXCEPT for getting rid of a volunteer
[07:23] <mrose> jeff: there are two exceptions to that, that i can find
[07:23] <mrose> galvin: the intent wasn't as clear as it could be
[07:24] <mrose> chair: things like when to meet, etc., could be subject to voting, and the clarification should cover this
[07:24] <mrose> chair: folks should read the old version to make sure the change is reflecting reality
[07:25] <mrose> galvin: the change basically is that the old draft had a number of rules, this one has just one
[07:25] <mrose> galvin: #3 - the expected timeline was made more explicit along with an appendix that spells it out
[07:25] <mrose> galvin: #4 - the responsibilities of all parties are now explicitly stated
[07:26] %% mallman has arrived.
[07:26] <mrose> galvin: #4 - this is new text ... we weren't trying to create anything that hasn't been done before
[07:26] <mrose> chair: any questions on that?
[07:27] <mrose> chair: how many have read this?
[07:27] <mrose> mtr: looks like about 40%
[07:27] <mrose> galvin: #5 - some clarification of the random seletion process
[07:27] %% resnick has arrived.
[07:28] <mrose> phil: one of the things about the random selection process that i was asked about is: the issue about making replacements...the issue is that even though the process is renewable, there isn't any text to deal with the fact that we know who the replacements will be
[07:28] <jhutz> The example I quoted at the mic was approving additioin of non-voting members (liasons and advisors), which must be approved by voting and non-voting members (per RFC2727).
[07:28] <mrose> galvin: there is something in the spec that says how to do this (announce new input for the selectoin process)
[07:29] <mrose> galvin: #6 - add a process for recalling members of the committee excluding the chair was added
[07:29] <jhutz> Since then I found an addtiional example, which is the proposal of rules to cover circumstances not covered in the process document. Such additions must also be approved by both voting and non-voting members per RFC2727.
[07:29] %% ggm has arrived.
[07:29] <mrose> agreed
[07:30] <hta> jhutz: in the new one, both your samples are covered by the general rule.
[07:30] <mrose> galvin: again #6 is new text, so folks should examine it critally
[07:30] <jhutz> So I think the existing document is consistent with the idea that only candidate selection votes are restricted to voting volunteers
[07:30] <mrose> galvin: #7 - a seperate process for recalling the chair.
[07:30] <mrose> galvin: again #7 is new text
[07:31] <jhutz> hta: correct. the claim was that the existing document only allowed "non-voting" members to vote on expulsion; I found counterexamples to that claim
[07:31] <mrose> galvin: here's an overview... the previous year's nomcom chair petitions the isoc president to recall the existing chair
[07:32] <mrose> galvin: as a rule, all the recall procedures ask that things try to get resolved within the nomcom
[07:32] <mrose> don: actually, it's the person who's occupying the slot of "last year's nomcom chair"
[07:32] <jhutz> (we ought to adopt some convention for clarifying the distinction between replying to another person's command and quoting a speaker; it's not always clear from context)
[07:33] <mrose> chair: for example, last year's chair may not be available, so another previous chair may be appointed to fill that role
[07:33] <mrose> galvin: #8 - a dispute resolution process for addressing internal process concerns was added, again new text
[07:34] <mrose> chair: anyone have any other comments or questions, etc., on the -02 draft?
[07:34] <mrose> chair: any jabber comments?
[07:35] <mrose> mrose: going once, twice...
[07:35] <mrose> chair: there are five open issues, 20 minutes allocated for each
[07:37] <mrose> chair: #1 - qualification for volunteering - the 2 out of 3 rule
[07:37] <mrose> chair: issue #1 - qualification for volunteering, the 2/3 rule
[07:38] <mrose> chair: one possibility: two pools one for "(past) management" the other for everyone else, decide a % between then
[07:38] <mrose> chair: should we use a big "N" rule instead (total IETFs attended)
[07:38] <hartmans> Examples of past management were given as WG chairs, i*, document editors,
[07:38] <mrose> chair: should we do this like jury duty
[07:39] <mrose> chair: no consensus, at present, for any change
[07:39] <mrose> joel: clearly this won't be resolved today
[07:39] <mrose> joel: we do seem to have a problem of not getting enough experienced participants on the nomcom
[07:39] <mrose> joel: but it is equally important for new folks to participate
[07:40] <hartmans> Is there evidence for that? Or anything stronger than just random comments?
[07:40] <hta> (about 40 people present in the room)
[07:40] %% jis has arrived.
[07:40] <mrose> hartmans - i haven't seen a concensus on any change on the list...
[07:41] <mrose> joel: i don't have a solution
[07:41] <mrose> don: scott brim asked me to speak twice as loud as usual since he likes what i posted...
[07:42] <mrose> don: the jury pool thing is a loser, in the past even volunteers have gone missing
[07:42] %% argc has arrived.
[07:43] <mrose> don: does the pool have to be gigantic? smaller pools, 40 or so, seemed to work ok... this year, we did more trawling, and got a larger pool
[07:43] <hartmans> don: Larger pools may lead to less experience volunteers
[07:43] <mrose> don: i don't like two pools or other complexities... if we have to change it, why not 3/5...
[07:44] <mrose> don: or let's "weight" people, where the weight is something like number of meetings attended, chairships, etc. but is any of this necessary?
[07:44] <mrose> don: we can solve this by not trying so hard
[07:44] <mrose> dave: i'm leaning towards big "N" additive, perhaps with a time-discount criteria
[07:44] <jhutz> I'd prefer two pools to weighting -- it's important to allow new "low-weighted" people an opportunity to participate
[07:45] <mrose> dave: one issue is that the statistical approaches may select people with experience in only one area
[07:46] <mrose> mark: 2/3 is insufficient... how about some kind of weighting for management experience and 3/5 or 4/6
[07:47] <mrose> ?: after attending 2 ietf meetings, i still didn't have enough clue as to how the ietf worked
[07:48] <mrose> michael: i don't think we've suffered from lack of experience with the current 2/3, the goal of getting experience is a good one
[07:49] <mrose> don: regarding management weighting: as long as the nomcom is a finite body, it's not a problem if we have little glitches now and then
[07:49] <mrose> harald: complexity is not good
[07:51] <hartmans> That seems fine provided that you don't have systemic tendencies towards a particular type of failure.
[07:51] <hartmans> s/that/don's comment/
[07:51] <mrose> harald: i think i hear two possibilities what we could do: 1. if you lack clue, don't volunteer, and 2. changing 2/3 to 3/5.
[07:51] <mrose> chair: how about a hum for updating the oral tradition about cluefulness?
[07:51] <mrose> chair: how about a hum for 3/5 instead of 2/3?
[07:51] <mrose> chair: that was a good hum
[07:51] %% argc has left.
[07:51] <mrose> chair: no hums for keeping it the same
[07:51] <mrose> chair; hum for the cluefulness note in the call for volunteers?
[07:51] %% sleinen has arrived.
[07:52] <mrose> klensin interrupts
[07:52] <mrose> klensin: there are two reasons for wanting to be on the nomcom: 1. the civic spirit, 2. the axe to grind
[07:52] <mrose> klensin: i'm concerned about any change that reduces 1 and increases 2
[07:52] <mrose> chair: the hum for oral tradition?
[07:53] <mrose> chair: is there a hum for the not putting an advisory
[07:53] <mrose> chair: a low hum
[07:53] <mrose> galvin: every time i try to leave they pull me back in...
[07:53] <mrose> chair: we'll surface this to the list, obviously
[07:53] %% mallman has left.
[07:54] <mrose> galvin: why are we changing it, what goals are we trying to achieve
[07:54] <mrose> galvin: what are the criteria
[07:54] %% ggm has left.
[07:54] <mrose> harald: one property of mailing list discussion is that they fly off in all directions
[07:55] <mrose> harald: having a specific proposal focuses the discussion
[07:55] %% ggm has arrived.
[07:56] <mrose> harald: the problem we're solving is tweaking things to get people with more than 6 months of ietf experience
[07:56] <mrose> chair: any jabber questions?
[07:56] <mrose> leer: why 3/5 instead of 4/6 or ...
[07:56] <hta> (I have 5 sec lag from Marshall's notes, I think)
[07:56] <hta> who in this room is not physically present?
[07:57] <jis> I am not (I'm in ipv6)
[07:57] <mrose> chair: for those folks not in the room, please indicate
[07:57] <mrose> galvin: i believe that the pool increases when you go from 2/3 to 3/5
[07:57] <mrose> don: i disagree
[07:57] <hartmans> Having used group IM chat in WG meetings for the past 2-3 years, they are actually fairly useful for side clarifications/discussions even when everyone in the chat is there.
[07:57] <mrose> chair: i don't think we really know
[07:58] <mrose> ?: i'd be happy with 3/5 with maybe a min of at least 5...
[07:58] <mrose> harald: we can ask the secretariat to give us real stats
[07:58] <mrose> galvin: there are stats on this
[07:59] <mrose> chair: i will write up a synopsis and go out to the list ... a room concensus for increasing the attendence requirement
[07:59] <mrose> chair: how about a hum on the second constraint?
[08:00] <mrose> chair: sounds like the negative hum is louder
[08:00] <mrose> chair: any final questions
[08:00] %% mallman has arrived.
[08:01] <mrose> ron: a comment on the "do you have a clue" language...if you don't understand the process, don't volunteer...go read the documents and get a clue
[08:01] <jhutz> To make this run more smoothly, the chair shouldn't have to stop and ask whether there are any questions from here. If anyone reading has a question and is not physically present, just speak up.
[08:01] <jhutz> (of course if you are physically present, you should use the mike)
[08:01] <jis> So what was agreed to?
[08:02] <hta> to take the proposal for 3 out of 5 to the list.
[08:02] <mrose> chair: topic 2 - number of participants from a single group/company
[08:02] <mrose> chair: concensus seems to be a maximum of 2.
[08:02] <jis> [keep in mind I am also attempting to follow ipv6 at the same time...]
[08:02] <jis> thanks
[08:02] <mrose> chair: procedure/definitions still under discussion
[08:03] <mrose> chair: current approximation requires volunteers must state "control group", only first two are accepted, others are passed over
[08:03] %% yone has left.
[08:03] <mrose> chair: should diversity (or lack) be considered
[08:03] %% ggm has left.
[08:03] <mrose> chair: control group definition - about 120 words...
[08:04] <mrose> mrose: my summary the 50% control rule for those familiar with sec regs
[08:04] %% argc has arrived.
[08:04] <mrose> michael: this would occur only at selection time, not later (e.g., a merger happens later)?
[08:04] <mrose> chair: right
[08:05] <mrose> ross: what about the us government?
[08:06] <mrose> klensin: as an informational answer, when ansi went down this path, their first cut was to view the us govt as one agent. that got changed
[08:06] %% hta has left.
[08:07] <mrose> klensin: but this may be too coarse grain
[08:07] <mrose> chair: this may be true for big corporations
[08:07] <mrose> ross: i like the rule, but folks from the air force may not agree with folks from the fcc
[08:08] <mrose> don: we don't need perfection, but we do need some kind of step. public oversight is important, i.e., let people see names and affiliations in the pool
[08:09] %% paul.knight has arrived.
[08:09] <mrose> don: historically, with small pools, this wasn't a problem; now that we've cast a wide net, it's now more probable to get multiple hits on a single organization
[08:10] <jhutz> I don't think the current pool size is relevant. The point of this rule is to prevent a large organization (or any organization) from stacking the nomcom and slowly "taking over" the IETF leadership for its own ends
[08:10] <mrose> don: we need to do something, cause we have about 1/20 chance of 4 from the same entity
[08:11] <mrose> klensin: this makes me nervous, i'm less nervous with disclosure
[08:11] <mrose> klensin: we need a mechanism for challenging a list after its announced
[08:11] %% leslie has arrived.
[08:12] <mrose> galvin: just fyi, there is a 1week challenge period for the list...
[08:12] <mrose> galvin: the rules for the period is coming up as an open issue
[08:13] <mrose> don: churning the nomcom has a high cost, so we need clear rules with short timeframes
[08:13] <mrose> don: some companies have four tiers of standards-activity bonuses, so there may be a lot of internal pressure on folks for them not to step down
[08:14] <mrose> don: it's much better to have a mandatory rule of this sort than to depend on invididuals relinguishing their position on the nomcom
[08:14] %% hta has arrived.
[08:14] %% paul.knight has left.
[08:15] <mrose> klensin: for companies like that, it's hard to restrain people from volunteering
[08:15] <mrose> steve: so i'm a consultant, and the AF is one of my clients, so what do i put down?
[08:16] <mrose> lew: we have an existence proof that community pressure does'nt work, so don: ++
[08:16] <mrose> lew: a clear process closes down a whole set of ambiguities...it is very, very good
[08:16] <mrose> anyone not in the room want to speak up?
[08:17] <mrose> joel: a couple of additional dimensions as to why we need a rule like this: if companies believe it is possible to pack the nomcom, then they will have to try (perhaps to protect themselves)
[08:18] <mrose> joel: it's about a basic structure to avoid getting into trouble
[08:18] <mrose> klensin: i agree with joel, but this isn't the right soluton
[08:19] <mrose> klensin: we don't have any evidence about public pressure working or not.
[08:19] <mrose> klensin: if we go down this path, we're increasing lawyer bait (e.g., you didn't do rule 1b right)
[08:19] <mrose> chair: so are you saying not to use legalistic language
[08:20] <mrose> klensin: no, that would invite more lawyers
[08:21] <jhutz> Wait... do we have to normalize people's affiliations before doing the string compare? What normalization form do we use?
[08:21] <hartmans> I'm not sure that you can avoid legal challenges; I think you are better off having something defensible and clear than avoiding legalistic language in some belief that lawyers won't challenge non-legalistic language
[08:22] <mrose> harald: just have everyone state their affiliation ... and do a string compare ... use the oral tradition
[08:24] <mrose> mrose: we already have something that can be considered lawyer bait, the rfc we're using now
[08:24] <mrose> joel: we can keep this manageable
[08:24] <mrose> klensin: the proposed rule is fuzzy and that's a problem
[08:25] <mrose> klensin: just get people to self-identify, and ask folks who match past two to drop off
[08:25] <mrose> final jabber check on this topic?
[08:25] <mrose> leer: i want to go back to the issue of what an entity is
[08:27] <mrose> jeff: but we're not ansi, we're not worry about directors, etc.
[08:27] <mrose> jeff: i don't think it hurts that much if you can have only two folks for th USG on the nomcom
[08:27] <hartmans> jhutz: The US should not be special; we are international
[08:28] <mrose> chair: my summary: there is concensus that we should limit to 2, but there's conflict as to whether there should be a formal entity definition
[08:28] %% resnick has left.
[08:28] %% resnick has arrived.
[08:28] %% resnick has left.
[08:29] %% resnick has arrived.
[08:29] %% resnick has left.
[08:29] <jhutz> mrose: 2 issues of contention.... (1) level of formality, (2) voluntary or mandatory removal
[08:29] %% resnick has arrived.
[08:30] <mrose> jhutz - did you get that?
[08:30] <mrose> don: this algorithm doesn't have to be executed by a computer
[08:30] <mrose> lew: i'm confused by the summarization
[08:31] <jhutz> heh... It would be bad if Bruce Schneier and Bruce Scheier found themselves both serving because one of them had a misspelled affiliation...
[08:31] <jhutz> Yes, I did...
[08:31] <mrose> lew: q1 - formal/informal
[08:31] <mrose> jhutz - ok, can you summarize for the room, i'm still confused
[08:32] <jhutz> chair: two mechanisms -- skip people during selection based on stated affiliations, but after that happens, if >2 people from the same company find themselves serving due to error, misspelling, etc, then one should step down
[08:32] <mrose> chair: i got the impression that overall there should be a rule, but the legalism was the problem
[08:32] <mrose> lew: perhaps as the ietf counsel how to implement what we want to accomplish
[08:33] <mrose> chair: but do we want legal language? i didn't think we did
[08:33] <mrose> lew: i think if we had a policy, then we need to get some legal advice on closing the door
[08:33] <mrose> harald: yes, the documents will be reviewed by legal document
[08:34] <mrose> george: the more the list can be culled initially rather than being challenged, the better
[08:35] <mrose> leer: let me restate klensin's concern... if we write in legal language, lawyers will interpret it, and that may put blood in the water
[08:35] <mrose> chair: i'll summarize this for the list, look for comments, and then the design team will put something up for review
[08:36] <mrose> chair: 3 - should there be a process for resolving challenges over volunteer selection?
[08:37] <mrose> galvin: there's no additional process for this, there's a one week challenge period for people to make an "IETF challenge" to the IETF chair...that's what the document says
[08:38] <mrose> galvin: we don't have a time period to resolve the challenge
[08:39] <jhutz> mrose: asks harald to come to the mic...
[08:39] <jhutz> mrose: suppose someone challenged this year's nomcom selection process, and directed the challenge to the chair. how long would it take to resolve?
[08:39] <jhutz> harald: depends on the type of challenge...
[08:40] <jhutz> for example, if someone claimed the process were flawed because none of their 2000 people were selected, it would probably be handled at next IESG call
[08:40] <jhutz> chair: clarification -- that means up to 2 weeks
[08:42] <jhutz> mrose: so, even the most specious claim could take up to 3 weeks
[08:42] <jhutz> mrose: could you put an upper bound on the process?
[08:42] <jhutz> harald: ... no
[08:42] <jhutz> mrose: point is, the IETF appeals process is not designed to handle such things in a timely fashion
[08:42] <mrose> mrose: my point is that the IETF challenge process wasn't designed to deal with short-timeframe conflicts...
[08:43] <jhutz> mrose, did you catch harald's last comment?
[08:43] <mrose> galvin: two observations: 1. the nomcom is permitted to make forward progress (except to putting forward a slate) during a challenge; 2. the dispute process has to be resolved in two weeks...
[08:43] <mrose> chair: is there a better process?
[08:44] <mrose> any jabber comments
[08:44] <jhutz> jis, any comments?
[08:44] <mrose> galvin: we should use the dispute resolution process...the isco president...maybe that helps the two-week thing plus keeps the iesg off the hook
[08:45] <mrose> coya: just give it to the ietf chair, and let him/her make the decision, you don't need the iesg
[08:45] <mrose> galvin: but the document says use the "IETF appeals process"
[08:45] <jhutz> harald: "I object"
[08:45] <jis> I'm paying too much attention in ipv6
[08:46] <mrose> lew: ... nomcom chair, isoc president?
[08:47] <mrose> galvin: but the nomcom chair was a conflict, so it has to be the isoc president as the only independent entity
[08:47] %% ietfwatch has left.
[08:47] <mrose> don: the appeals thing doesn't have to be adversarial. i think we should give the nomcom chair the option to look at it first
[08:48] <mrose> chair: hum for "in the case of a challenge it goes to the nomcom chair, escalating to the isoc president"
[08:48] <mrose> jis - your loss!
[08:48] <jis> I agree
[08:48] <jis> (I caught up)
[08:48] <mrose> ok hum for the change
[08:49] <mrose> chair: new issue - midterm vacancy procedures
[08:49] <mrose> chair: solution nomcom terms are 15 months long, but no sharing (outside of the previous chair thing, or members)
[08:49] <mrose> bradner: this is potentially confusing
[08:50] <mrose> bradner: maybe it's better to let the seat sit idle
[08:50] <mrose> harald: the concept of operating the iesg without any AD in an area or a chair for six months is bad
[08:50] <mrose> klensin: how about 2-3 months instead of 6?
[08:51] <mrose> harald: it takes a nomcom more than 3 months to get results, it takes 6.
[08:52] <leslie> I brought this issue up to the nomcom design team (I'm not in the room).
[08:52] %% argc has left.
[08:52] <leslie> From my point of view, we should not have a process that *prevents* us from filling a slot
[08:53] <leslie> Particularly if we have a situation where 2 slots open simultaneously -- like (more or less) Routing last year
[08:53] <mrose> bradner: what's the real delta based on the old/new nomcoms spinning up?
[08:53] <mrose> chair: if a seat becomes vacant...
[08:53] <mrose> galvin: there's a subtly in that the nomcom only fills positions that it's told about...
[08:54] <mrose> jis - any comments?
[08:54] %% mallman has left.
[08:55] <mrose> don: it may be a good idea to restrict volunteers if they are existing members
[08:55] <mrose> leslie's point read to mic
[08:55] <jhutz> (first time this week I've actually seen a comment relayed from here)
[08:56] <mrose> jhutz - sorry, missed her comment
[08:56] <mrose> galvin: the no-overlapping voting thing opens a big can of worms...
[08:57] <mrose> chair: not sure where the concensus lies on this...
[08:57] %% anewton has arrived.
[08:58] <mrose> phil: it seems like having two nomcoms working on the same area at the same time can result in strange situations
[08:59] <mrose> phil: if you're reconstituting the nomcom after a period of inactivity, you may have replace some of the members
[08:59] <jhutz> Excep they really won't be -- if the new nomcom takes 3 months to spin up before it starts considering nominees, and the old nomcom only handles midterm vacancies that must be filled before then, then there is no _real_ overlap
[09:00] <mrose> chair: hum to keep the 15month service period as currently in the document?
[09:00] <mrose> hums for: weak, against: ultra-weak
[09:01] <mrose> chair: hum on limiting voting volunteers from serving in two consecutive nomcoms?
[09:02] <mrose> hums for: sounds close to me
[09:02] <mrose> bradner: the 15month thing complicates it, the real issue is two consecutive terms
[09:02] <mrose> don: with this restriction, the nomcom will have different axes to grind
[09:03] <mrose> leer: what about two vacant seats in the same area? i hope that the prior nomcom would complete their work before the new nomcom presents their slate. am i wrong?
[09:04] <mrose> chair: the timing is probably that the new nomcom wouldn't have done any selection yet.
[09:04] <mrose> chair: any other discussion?
[09:04] <mrose> harald: i don't like having more rules
[09:06] <mrose> klensin: let's talk more on ax-grinding... if you have a cabal of axe-grinders, it won't matter
[09:06] <mrose> jhutz - did i summarize that right? hard to follow what klensin says
[09:07] <jhutz> klensin says that the problem with a cabal of axe-grinders is identical to the problem with multiple people from the same company
[09:07] <mrose> leer: cabals? i'm in favor of 'em... if there's a problem with individuals(s) on the iesg, then they should work towards removal...
[09:07] <mrose> chair: okay, let's take it to the list.
[09:07] <mrose> chair: final open issue - the recall procedure
[09:08] <mrose> chair: recall procedure is DDOS susceptible
[09:09] <jhutz> Not DDOS -- just an ordinary DOS
[09:09] <mrose> chair: recommended change - require a petition signed by N (2% of the average attendence over the last 3 meetings) people qualified to server on nomcom
[09:09] <mrose> don: N% should be over qualified people attending, not total attendees
[09:10] <leslie> (Belatedly -- thanks for reading my comment to the room)
[09:10] <mrose> harald: don++
[09:12] <mrose> klensin: i think i prefer this, but i think we need to move past the 3 meeting limit, e.g., if the issue dealt with discrimination against people who don't attend meetings
[09:12] <mrose> klensin: the petition must be public
[09:12] %% mlshore has arrived.
[09:13] <jhutz> mrose: I was one of the people involved in putting the recall procedure in. The fact that it hasn't been used tells us only that unreasonable people haven't discovered it yet
[09:14] <hartmans> mrose - What does your ++ notation mean?
[09:14] <mrose> harald: the purpose of a petition is to make someone do the work before the process kicks in
[09:14] <mrose> hartmans: don++ means "the speaker agrees with don"
[09:15] %% sleinen has left.
[09:15] %% hta has left.
[09:15] %% hta has arrived.
[09:16] <mrose> don: if you want a simpler rule, you just need to make sure that you're dealing with "qualified" individuals and the % or number can be really small
[09:16] <jhutz> Ah.... In other forums, we have traditionally used == to mean that
[09:16] %% anewton has left.
[09:17] <jhutz> (so, ==don would mean "agrees with don", while don++ means "don is a good guy")
[09:17] <mrose> chair: can i hear a hum on accepting this proposal?
[09:17] <mrose> for stronger hum than against
[09:17] <mrose> any jabber comments?
[09:17] <mrose> going...
[09:17] <mrose> going...
[09:18] <mrose> chair: adjourn
[09:18] <jhutz> all done!
[09:18] %% jhutz has left.
[09:18] %% resnick has left.
[09:19] %% jis has left.
[09:19] %% mlshore has left.
[09:25] %% leslie has left.
[09:28] %% hta has left.
[09:29] %% mrose has left.
[09:31] %% hartmans has left.
[13:51] %% resnick has arrived.
[13:51] %% resnick has left.
[20:18] %% avri has arrived.
[20:23] %% avri has left.