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

Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Tue, 24 December 2013 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@ritter.vg>
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 3D2E61ADFBC for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:16:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 7WgE3eEZEnRx for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:16:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x229.google.com (mail-pd0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86771ADFBA for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:16:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id v10so6607049pde.0 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:16:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9/JfXcNHTFosCGJTGtEGAPv0Y4vhfG31XB+1jJxtNuA=; b=3F2XT4l3I5ngY4JeQyjVwTayccFvMStWqF2Lw4cttpincfpp8TUnGwcXH/OomK1HvP XP4fAx1a6gUCkNsyx+MQdymaO/tmKcxAg7QwPKbxItvYRCr1UYLv4EypatD4e9W+K1Ej 0sn9fmLBVhKQpB1814pp4B9UbDOZ6b2kgWAzY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9/JfXcNHTFosCGJTGtEGAPv0Y4vhfG31XB+1jJxtNuA=; b=PJI8LZjZQpKW6QuwMVEx1FZ/GyG4BE0i2LhfYq6BBCwmQMsmk8zwDiDkJQcOVKuRw9 Wcbtt+79d1G5dU9Ny80du5kDqgwZSAiigUS4Jx6zgDuslPXBRQp7ovbjzYff5gvDBxp1 o+JN7Ofr3PcRgJDNp1ENjWl5lVRaV1hp7JcgAHHPGFA45zx1Qt8IMSwoosoj9RDT8zuX WfEUC2uJ+5k1M4A0y3XnbjMHQI1GIANcHsxqVU4oIiQwsAuNEYObsh5vLQh+KRcFIR3C nwtBfcrvczw7Dszr6VLWtXqSPgrAJP/TWFSBoI3aJaf+QwPYnGiBH9USsplGHx8EGOwq 6/Ag==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkbJVR075Iu1ka0qNgKPxK6T10VqLriNv5Wi2eTWtqSUd+MxPwgNqSSfa3nIB58My9aetuc
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.220.194 with SMTP id py2mr34431648pbc.92.1387912578271; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.169.193 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.169.193 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:16:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AA79A33E-D6B9-4693-A670-B4458011B394@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>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:16:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+cU71mTCVHAe2a46USJihr9ihPVw_vQTu0xk-mpRp41La88Xg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
To: Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2edecd353f1d04ee4c94f9
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 19:16:23 -0000

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