Re: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-variance-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 28 March 2020 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F513A0EB9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 13:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 pf26aSvamXN4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 13:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62f.google.com (mail-pl1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF60F3A0EB7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 13:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id w3so4983762plz.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 13:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2A9V+Nb77aVOn6QF66WU8Yrj4er2hAEgKk0jtRINRco=; b=ipA4B2/PfOlGP+V3FO4vVjr8hFFT/SdRm7fcnuUPWYsre/nnMzP+EiNv2PLe5zdl+t AyPfMdbcq9NyV3Tc1waxKzfAS5j0HycRsKh1XqhesWZuWVs9ic+ittHfGdgjsh94gIT9 ec1QS1DW5DQynQ3IsIkKP9dIxtE55CBQTxOePch+zqSgbu96w/kt2anFgWPTu7RnLtaB lZ7AYEl+oqfQ/gyzxrN2D/EBlcZbojwQD4GUUBAru75SXirydFvIEFaO9kun59dLDf+y jPEGsC/GfCqRE98O4/NpFrhuE8SolQu2TFaG9THbCymeBlMmwRGyjAeRDaBjLxH6kacF BTCA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2A9V+Nb77aVOn6QF66WU8Yrj4er2hAEgKk0jtRINRco=; b=tWatXoHzcxp3QYScKY5Wez7rASnDz1+RvCZHkcIcTiZZzma8KzSnOV5SL8EaaDTxt7 kkc1biSY42fYHaBA5DHoNop3TkYzqmSRGjlMWLNNizlUMeAr1KUTJ9+XwI4FdDclOyqH RsiYMnrLMLgrOTCoS670BuhTInJ2TEQQ5ozCeGl3iw7Sow4Hoe0/v01O1WfFD5bFy49/ KcppE+IzLoNAwJcewUYZzQAIwOuJPZsZ/uRTzW0WDSvyMtF/5VJbCBXiNQR/Hb5JUPtd fvpBlivLCY4CGV2niVyni567aTfy9XjyvEO8o3YXRmw8v4dYAS2T62Ra6SdU/vSFcDNi 716g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2B7zkSziDV4mkS/KlzmSIbNapJK99e9QSiqjh+UXXTK0xZEX6L 0gJv5WB6GeC7yDctrkaZu5Xmjhhq
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvBSLb5F5X+Buy8VEaHOLtvB/KnrT8uk+o5wCacA+nXtmUt9NjYXlXIQAnIaXX/cJZHjP/NOQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4906:: with SMTP id kr6mr7086870pjb.13.1585429021930; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 13:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.25.143]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z12sm7110060pfj.144.2020.03.28.13.56.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 28 Mar 2020 13:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-variance-00.txt
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <158533925458.17797.13806166303625482245@ietfa.amsl.com> <AE66200A-E718-4BF6-BA87-EE427A0BF971@episteme.net> <0e9e0a5f-5022-9a06-b8be-46d922f31aa7@nostrum.com> <4f79a660-2268-dad0-e796-dc1fabfcf73d@network-heretics.com> <A2B6BC2A-5983-48D9-BF0E-F782BBA54004@episteme.net> <0b518909-d421-afe7-b473-3d7ea3b04648@network-heretics.com> <CAC4RtVA1j4vSCvgWstnajveAqgWYvu19UDSNKBagk3XjfDM=2A@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200328123608.1187e9c0@elandnews.com> <2784d40b-618a-7201-2209-cfdd4630fa39@gmail.com> <250C86A5-479E-4E65-904F-3FB7C4E40571@sobco.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ed32c0bd-98da-49a7-fcde-26eca432c4c4@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 09:56:57 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <250C86A5-479E-4E65-904F-3FB7C4E40571@sobco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ChkmLKGjytpneHH7wbhAzDLcK40>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 20:57:04 -0000

On 29-Mar-20 09:37, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 28, 2020, at 4:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> …
> 
>>
>> The NomCom Chair has not been appointed, and is subject to the same eligibility rules as the volunteer pool. At the moment, the ISOC President cannot appoint a chair because he cannot know who is eligible. So we are in a vacuum until the IESG exercises its judgement. (Which is why I don't think we should go the draft-resnick-variance route.)
>>
>> Stay well,
>>    Brian
>>
> 
> actually, there is a significant pool of people that qualify even if one assumes the the last meeting did or did not happen
> (i.e. people who had been at 3 of the  4 meetings 103, 104, 105 & 106) you would lose some people that were at only 
> two of those meetings and were at meeting 102 or meeting 107 (depending on how the decision comes out) but  the 
> ISOC president could move ahead if he wanted to 
> 
> Scott

Well, that's not immune to challenge, which is why I believe that almost any choice that the IESG could make is fine, as long as it's notified to the ISOC Board. That wouldn't completely immunise against an appeal but would make an appeal highly unlikely to succeed.

Certainly if we can get a BCP out very quickly that would do fine, but it would have to be a very minimal BCP whose 4 week last call starts in the next week or two.
    Brian