IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparency"

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Mon, 23 October 2017 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5CD139561 for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 wz3nQEISSA9E for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F99F138105 for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122332.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v9NK6Uwh002196; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:07:12 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=ZSbZ4vKWiuqJPdff+A/YGiLRLpO2vbSbWqx36CmGKk8=; b=dq9eeMPf21GJRvpAxVapUVhF7gPPDz8M5vlSRD215LF0mkVutQEcNQO2UYxhFrlBzywn k64ruHXcUs2qZpQlhRoO2/PytQzZcvJ4dwA7HNjwvRFzzIVqn9NJMoyMqmUf6bpdjyFx Ih8U+r5FtXjWNQ3P63+xv+D0pIL4EmY/6wowHT1Zz05KPPMMtVP7dVI8hAD4GWVEbshO nWsKfXL84Ig5rpIUQ8YlQOnuZmBxvSKvwve5IXov4pQYb+DteIquzflXeDemw1bnpehc mfV2DiT5pSQzEQovPvmR96BCQVr7fgD8K4iz8o3HG6B+H+rYg4H1Z2fbf966uA/R2Nrp PA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint3 ([96.6.114.86]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2dqx9ef6s5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:07:12 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v9NK6NA0006792; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:07:11 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2dr1jvfu29-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:07:11 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:07:09 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:07:09 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
CC: NomComDiscussion <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparency"
Thread-Index: AQHTRsiE55WWCJX6hk63Iqd9YTsfKKLoSbsAgAAWIICAAABCgIAAC6KAgAAEb4CAAAEpAIAAEPuAgAmoLQA=
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:07:08 +0000
Message-ID: <5BDAF4B0-FE20-4940-B436-683209FAC9C9@akamai.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20171016135236.12dcaa60@elandnews.com> <3E158B61-DCF7-485C-B350-DA14B2B8CBDA@akamai.com> <CAA=duU0aiLUzZAP3vmS2tTzxEinzc4hA0UFpd3_dprkjDHnqkg@mail.gmail.com> <FF365C9F-6CE1-41A5-82BB-F15CFB748492@akamai.com> <CAA=duU2k+8-+M2vj5Tk_czJA_VL0ZJ8Z8xhpo0zqu-JqY7mWNQ@mail.gmail.com> <8CB73C9E-9BF2-4252-A98A-D5AA1FE597DC@akamai.com> <DE6132DBB7813E23C606B56B@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <DE6132DBB7813E23C606B56B@PSB>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.35.171]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <6BAE002F635F734591C67E8D98179B69@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-10-23_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1707230000 definitions=main-1710230283
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-10-23_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1707230000 definitions=main-1710230283
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-nomcom/Im-gqnKHOH0I99aORrbXKIdDoGU>
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparency"
X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process <ietf-nomcom.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-nomcom/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:07:15 -0000

John,

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response.

       "There is probably a good balance among those points of view, but I believe it is one the community should be discussing in an open way that addresses the actual choices, not by tweaking Nomcom membership without thinking through the likely consequences.”

Yes.  I would like to help address this.  A bar BoF at 100, a real BoF at 101?  Thoughts on how to move forward?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email