Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair

Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com> Tue, 24 December 2013 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bew@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C171AE06E for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:53:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.038
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3wIATOqw0zW6 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:53:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC6791AE06B for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:53:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5405; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1387914790; x=1389124390; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=18YXd4a9w/xXA7+dacVIHSop+YXBR2jU8QAoXifOKC0=; b=K+K0KSiE8zo4HTksyMume/yFpOhs3vto/+R3Ffgk1PRO/tyS6tGIyamr yuhMMdwo1VKFmlFZLz3FcWQ2No9n44BXKL+u2t4A7qlhZUyXa97sIId7j jvO7c2JLiOBTKRTmHtRprPbKSgZk85WLXKqLiiwxLBSclRiRHprwO5vTt U=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,544,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="8901234"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Dec 2013 19:53:09 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-213.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-213.cisco.com [10.32.244.213]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rBOJr8LE013848; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 19:53:08 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3E4BEEE6-7F26-4B9B-9878-4A13D36431C1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+cU71mTCVHAe2a46USJihr9ihPVw_vQTu0xk-mpRp41La88Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:53:09 -0800
Message-Id: <3610EDB1-C9A1-4016-BC18-3954FA682FFD@cisco.com>
References: <CAGZ8ZG2f9QHX40RcB8aajWvEfG0Gh_uewu2Rq7bQGHYNx6cOmw@mail.gmail.com> <52B91820.9090706@cisco.com> <CAGZ8ZG02+o=Qm0gUQiVF9H_=wfn+wQt8ahY1ntLHNsELXbvtVg@mail.gmail.com> <AA79A33E-D6B9-4693-A670-B4458011B394@cisco.com> <CA+cU71mTCVHAe2a46USJihr9ihPVw_vQTu0xk-mpRp41La88Xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>, David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com>, "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 19:53:16 -0000

On Dec 24, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>; wrote:

> 
> On Dec 24, 2013 1:45 PM, "Brian Weis" <bew@cisco.com>; wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Dec 24, 2013, at 4:02 AM, Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>; wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Has there ever been an open process for CFRG chairs?  I think you and
> > > Ran Canetti were appointed at the beginning of CFRG, and then you
> > > appointed Kevin as Ran's replacement with no call for other
> > > candidates.  Is that right?
> >
> > I'm appalled that now this discussion has apparently been reduced to
> > a thinly veiled hint at conspiracy and/or collusion. Sheesh. Get to
> > know IRTF process, please.
> 
> I did not interpret it as a reference to conspiracy, rather a note of the lack of opportunity to raise objections, ask for volunteers, or nominations. I'm not familiar with the actual appointment in question, it's likely Kevin was an active participant that, aside from his employer, made sense. But, if there was no opportunity to raise concern/conflict of interest, this lack of opportunity to provide input is worth noting. Not that it means conspiracy, just that it makes this conversation all the more relevant (as there is no 'you could have replied to this thread' argument).
> 
> -tom
> 

As has been stated, IRTF work is done by individuals and are volunteers. A certain level of trust is required in those volunteers required in order to have an effective organization. The relevant trust here is that the CFRG co-chair, the IRTF Chair and the IAB at the time the decision was made made a well informed decision. If I recall correctly, the CFRG was not very active at that time and the leadership made the best decision they could. It is not useful to go back and question their decision making process unless you are questioning the honesty and competency  of the responsible people of the time. This is what I find objectionable. That's just more witch hunting.

There has always been on opportunity to raise objections to the decision made, and indeed now it has happened. The appropriate process is being followed but only if it stays focused.

Brian