Hey Brian - what say - I am no longer the top poster eh? Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Michael StJohns" <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "'IETF-Discussion'" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; <richard@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:24 AM Subject: 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@xxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> 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@xxxxxxxx > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf