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

Yoav Nir <> Wed, 25 December 2013 07:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F1A1A1F7D for <>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 23:19:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.439
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mTni5JydV1vx for <>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 23:19:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2491A1F19 for <>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 23:19:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rBP7JKCP014821; Wed, 25 Dec 2013 09:19:20 +0200
X-CheckPoint: {52BA829B-4-1B221DC2-1FFFF}
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 25 Dec 2013 09:19:20 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <>
To: Tao Effect <>
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 07:19:20 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: protection disabled
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 07:19:29 -0000

On Dec 25, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Tao Effect <> wrote:

> Correction, this comment of mine is incorrect:
> On Dec 24, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Tao Effect <> wrote:
>> OK, then explain why no opportunity was given to raise objections (at that time).
>> Is that just how the CFRG operates? The chair (or co-chair) picks the person they want to co-chair and the rest of the community has no say in it?
> It was pointed out to me off-list that David did in fact give the group an opportunity to voice their support or concerns for Kevin's nomination as co-chair:

It should also be noted that although David did so in this case, the chair job at the IETF and IRTF is seen as administrative. Technical understanding of the issues is required, but the chair is neither expected to be the foremost expert in the group not expected to choose the path that a group will follow. Because of this, chairs are mostly appointed by the ADs or the IRTF chair without consulting the group. When stating that "this algorithm is OK in this aspect, but has a timing issue", their words should carry no more weight than any other participant, and often less weight than some contributors who are experts in their fields.  CFRG right now has two chairs who are experts, but that is not an absolute requirement for a successful group.