IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <victor@jvknet.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 92EDB3A2683 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jvknet-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 RaAuUVVIHae3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42a.google.com (mail-wr1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42a]) (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 DE93E3A0955 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id d5so27374263wrn.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jvknet-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZJTdkgR/6VlWsBmDz85AQGJwCsZdS/5Axsi10rogf4s=; b=zrdJUo4sdrnpfxFt0yWm7DQN1L63TwjIx9kOXNea2ve79syNYuw4iaVWQnDJer8TWZ vLiJQ1CHL5Kh+gb60R6XvNiFw/qdq9PUTWdLmIHhT7Gs8GEEeTP3nCpJGVV0OG40lI9Q fSShRgCAl/QGMEsNwxhTFrL/4SD+iljHfQXuqzbTa7tDhkMAk3PfML39CW6tjok7VaaN mZ2C3QCveUqdo5/8Cxz37b7HhP56elpWTIgzMX1HEx8bZwCM0VKVahq8mI8mML58npRu svSubrlDbhGNEYcMSfKyzarsWxU/M/9t2GqAYUnlzmbLkwdmyyJ8hNHBqZvNlXmrgiNf mKiA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZJTdkgR/6VlWsBmDz85AQGJwCsZdS/5Axsi10rogf4s=; b=uP8xdTduDBYXB5EjD29YXICKxdPzD9RVcUAMqJK+CY5MurJ8lcm2fwV3F8LNCc3Vt0 wWlutt/9fEOj6s8bnJxXCR8bx7sqr1dGDlT2rRwxtTcz6hpUUJLgkEzdVm3Dt5KzbPnX xjs4klXEcZR/bhgNOPO9rCWT9Yn+qig6SEBCb8KSixD+xABP61VY1LFY5F4MnZ3R+HWL oWgCodIctl0p3Vi/4kf4M9Q4lqzoiTNkjg+4qD0eQsXreg8sgBmX8/os9GYAqCFDqvk+ q7OfuiieKpziPdeyCwELQWbxXamy771CyINA+b5RG4rDNczyKwMSBb87B7LhYfFMyIis rYsg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2ZY5c4T0UzKiXX0xDxSkJXce/lr07SWv3sa1vnu4Rg+t8iEgte 5SmsqbtsWRj8jogLXCz4S6caRfhczbqsbYsUS9dhyw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vslAKSZiQVkxK/LbgH21eKIKbVs4xh/9Y1iOknkRfBGGUh1w2La5gZYQYWO33Uy2C+sOuWtVKOMTAkvBjSviXE=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:a54a:: with SMTP id j10mr22693405wrb.188.1585679273008; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCzMPGuunYZBCSh90ddY2kKJ_Hqnot0s1jmhNQ7qT0xkg@mail.gmail.com> <89730DD8-0451-4658-A0CD-83A85E2055FE@episteme.net> <0C31D020-46FA-424E-8FFD-64BBE8F952E9@cooperw.in> <eaa80949-98f6-8cd4-43bf-a7158f19b999@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <eaa80949-98f6-8cd4-43bf-a7158f19b999@comcast.net>
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:27:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJc3aaOvif3LJKhBCpVAzbpc5A+X-wipb4uCa=oNmpy9bVPSmw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cbb3e205a22ab9e4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ExmdUI6N102f_lVon-lOLrmyajs>
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 18:27:57 -0000

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 2:15 PM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On 3/31/2020 1:56 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>
> At this point I really don't care all that much because it's probably
> not going to materially affect the outcome of the Nomcom process -
> mainly because it was unexpected enough that no one was in a position to
> game this easily.   Selecting one of these 4 different options at random
> may be the best strategy - everyone will be equally annoyed, but it
> might be possible to get consensus.
>

I would agree to that point.  I think a decision just needs to be made and
we as the community will need to accept it and move on.  We need a Nomcom
seated, and get on with business.

No matter what we do, it's not going to be perfect or even ideal, so
debating this much further likely is not going to make the outcome any
better (as it assumes there is a "best" position).

regards,

Victor K




>
> Later, Mike
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email