IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-nomcom] Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility - draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-01

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 30 July 2013 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 BAE9311E8100 for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.279, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NBHbW0eUPLW9 for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:54:19 -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 2E1FC21F9D5C for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.144.38]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6UAs6fe021568 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1375181658; bh=Xnbra3yFAzUg+0TIpmYT2DojC0Iy0m/sAa0G2c9qIjA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=w9qT+nbN/hrgQkO11Q804q2Sa1dvbbHmFNOMTyJhB+x0fkhBWwXnj7QBdPZYjSOBF rbgV7+Z/Sv68ofYsOcDFWbQg/DFP0cs3H1yuim25ZD38Hwj0fUaACxpGSc2lurjNu6 3Y97M23IL2DEpzWofjMnhwkoB37A2VXXF/nq+ycw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1375181658; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Xnbra3yFAzUg+0TIpmYT2DojC0Iy0m/sAa0G2c9qIjA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=JczfyMMN+02UAi+mWZZQwgxpnQyBE6S36iDC/6msB1YArBwppiCb/WlEURo0SX2YZ Jl7kFxXkpSzKB2zGjcG0Alzy4kDKKMWdcqylCDaPwmWS8exHuyflK7TL1MCKUZHRSr +3LZtlefPMMIMPXHMxsDFyLaRQteovmLaL7p2L3w=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130730034456.0d81a700@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:53:43 -0700
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <32379.1375179842@sandelman.ca>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130730022629.0b408308@elandnews.com> <32379.1375179842@sandelman.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility - draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-01
X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:54:19 -0000

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the feedback.

At 03:24 30-07-2013, Michael Richardson wrote:

>S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
>     > The proposed requirements are:
>
>Pick one?  yes,that's what your draft says.

Yes.


>     > (a) attended at least 3 of last 5 IETF meetings
>
>     > (b) attended at least 15 IETF meetings, including at least
>     > 2 of the last 5 IETF meetings.
>
>     > (c) attended at least 2 of the last 5 IETF meetings and has been
>     > listed as least twice as personnel during the last 5 IETF
>     > meetings.
>
>I don't understand "personnel".

The "personnel" is mentioned in the write-ups (e.g. see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg11736.html 
).  The write-up is public information and it can be validated by anyone.

>I still think that one should seperate "becoming eligible" from "remaining
>eligible"

The "remaining eligible" was not mentioned in previous 
discussions.  Item (b) attempts to address the "remaining eligible".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email