IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00.txt

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 11 February 2016 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873131B3329 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:13:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 tcWIPT-LNFRQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AE5A1B2B9D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u1BFDKOJ031407 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:13:20 -0800
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00.txt
References: <20160202182036.26498.27650.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56B10131.7040603@gmail.com> <C8F5EEE2CF0CBC7E3BB44477@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <56B12368.2070609@comcast.net> <CAC4RtVBrtxyro+2EOSAOop7xDr-z7xu97kuVzPzaFoBzj_5jTg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-fryazj5EXuYyQ4hQgzTMVbyYhUuR_rcRE7zWkrUCzwVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <56BCA505.6090003@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:13:09 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-fryazj5EXuYyQ4hQgzTMVbyYhUuR_rcRE7zWkrUCzwVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:13:20 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/K-KpcbViVwC2vlmsjvv9ruxDq7c>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:13:22 -0000


On 2/10/2016 9:20 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> So I'm thinking "no real change in practice" is even more true.


The rationale and the result for the IAOC is in line with what I tried 
to propose some years ago, when I was on the IAOC.  (As I recall, the 
primary argument against it, within the IAOC, was that it would make the 
group too large.)

In terms of the added load on Nomcom, I suspect it's a problem.  Enough 
of a problem to make me think that it might be worth dividing up 
Nomcom's load to have to different dates for delivering nominations.

d/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email