[Eligibility-discuss] Status update (was: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period)
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 02 September 2019 11:27 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 679DC120052 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=opendkim.org header.b=1TArDQq/; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=4s6pSJo7
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 dPY0jqfFWtzb for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CFD9120103 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.197.107]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x82BRfMt003394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1567423674; x=1567510074; bh=k4KWw9kyX+qoH3JvyO4pEeBuowgAgU+K1KLeOaR1+d4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=1TArDQq/j3xFdwfSYymtFekS4ZZlriRvj2GThBfF/8D812tpRrNLR/23pMRSnUFbU IeBJB2jXxkkj1Wn4JqjCP902i+tEyvOsAIsfx4Y1rdg0rl4EWgDzlBKxmdR+XkKrkb IRuhb76VMMqEA1L8yf4pUnwO0gPwf3wrKeCilYSs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1567423674; x=1567510074; i=@elandsys.com; bh=k4KWw9kyX+qoH3JvyO4pEeBuowgAgU+K1KLeOaR1+d4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=4s6pSJo7au3mqjLw507ivPMyGIv3a8E0iWPkAQWKgT8QSOf66BP6VAZpa4DM0lpGW 4aiUZ4SaQ+8PkMaYqOKG8LPIKSWRGf6taVzfhfB/PaZj/Uszmp4rhBAo9AzU0hvZcA ddqKrngtUdnc+HiOWAMx+RtYJfM8RC9P5txdd1E8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190902034741.11a2fba8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 04:23:00 -0700
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <964a7d97-f146-4d2e-aa3e-d39fc08f6f76@Mikes-IPhone>
References: <964a7d97-f146-4d2e-aa3e-d39fc08f6f76@Mikes-IPhone>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/kLZSVSPixX5ZcolnIEVgmK_orW8>
Subject: [Eligibility-discuss] Status update (was: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period)
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: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 11:27:56 -0000
Hi Warren, >[removed] - specifically in the discussion that prompted [removed] >to threaten to PR me. I removed some information in the text quoted above as, in my opinion, it is better to focus on the issue instead of the persons. IETF participants are segregated into two classes. The issue is that a person falling in the wrong class does not have the same recourse as a person in the other class if he/she has to face such threats repeatedly. Would it be possible for any of the Area Directors to provide a status update about the virtual BOF request? Regards, S. Moonesamy
- [Eligibility-discuss] Status update (was: Sergean… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Status update (was: Ser… Warren Kumari
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Status update (was: Ser… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Status update (was: Ser… Warren Kumari