IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 18 September 2019 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9FCA120953 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
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 il_H7sQFKQfJ for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2B0120086 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.158.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id x8IKCPrv013981 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1568837558; x=1568923958; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Adu7XJODmvztQn4ozSldlVne1SOtsU3wJAT0p76MiQc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=hmkK8LXYE0oxX+Lpipw2SYjef33sEmE5Uyingo5hL+317ONCnr2iQ2c+DKqGBwSZn g3yqSk4AJYRDBvd2Y9yFJ/jvDoeO/JZSHzX7kAjn7phhYoq0eZxd96+M8ChsTZdVnL V3fdY0K+xLlP+Jz3iiPkfBqxpGBAYEnTrTuUqeR4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190918125334.13e73f70@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:11:58 -0700
To: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNmT2ONMacUiVsjUuR=cHz=fAog3ojNuhrD7P0eqQbOSQ@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CALaySJ+BEoDd5aas9VfAmfcF+H_54w4ETNafVwFAObhY_A2v-Q@mail.gmail.com> <C90E6D6D-D058-40A5-AA3B-2D2002077016@episteme.net> <CALaySJJggQqYhVHSdKCx4BvpiR31oodx9C9NkzfMoFGbUv+gmg@mail.gmail.com> <939D2A7C64A58595AD2B9CBD@PSB> <CABcZeBNxVgJE=jv7+Zf6RjkG3r-+00zuMQ=2mtESrP4skkPgzQ@mail.gmail.com> <4A244E1EFA8D1821D2D49ABD@PSB> <CABcZeBNmT2ONMacUiVsjUuR=cHz=fAog3ojNuhrD7P0eqQbOSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/cI5qpzZV87l8NHZV8C6qga9cOo8>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 20:12:40 -0000

Hello,
At 10:50 AM 18-09-2019, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:24 AM John C Klensin 
><<mailto:john-ietf@jck.com>john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>. Recalls are the
>community's only socially-acceptable way of removing someone who
>has exhibited a consistent pattern of unacceptably bad behavior,
>whether it is demonstrated through particular decisions or not.
>
>
>This seems like a rather odd claim, given that we have any number of 
>worked examples of people being successfully removed by the ordinary 
>nomcom process.

The Nomcom process and the Recall process are independent of each other.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email