IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Follow-up from NomCom advisor discussion

Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> Fri, 24 July 2020 16:47 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 3BCA93A0E02 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 PUBYpNNM6p9H for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) (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 99BFA3A0B84 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id b6so8886871wrs.11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:47:05 -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=ngEAGTP1ngfqGAplv2bFuOl853VVeDw3vIFCCBpfBOQ=; b=rFyCKhyQMQGsZSMW3ITPsJSibDbT+GmbmLOgQxnpJQXOrVTTC3p3sq3BztM9696PsG s71XHyu0YK1DL35qamUjD/PrMJM/Dn3xDkNX+DqFD+tz7d0WOWZ9YYuUXVmmYWxNQWMl EsAO8iHdv/NYPkNXoXWVY6qs3gGXHDGSWKhTcBXmOj/h2XiC585kzAiXFRYURQ1fGyiN 3pdB+oL2eCoZgWgYizP3WZW65tSmM6KjL8UYNYOuNoXcYGJNebWa+r8WjrQyNvxP0a2d qTV3tSWHarNcATo6hHupA4q4A3uB+o05OZP5cmb5aZYIQ59pPQKUd1Pcr/zTAoWYeVPP CUdQ==
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=ngEAGTP1ngfqGAplv2bFuOl853VVeDw3vIFCCBpfBOQ=; b=ZLcGt5BKN/AW/bopXW22sZF2BdvOA6eNlk6cidrYiDXwLbO/2fyWGtNnP4jpzekLq5 eg4FJeSj57rlY5rV44f+xinJPC8c7rzm7anzZ3YbG7ixy6lQeotHSOZNf5zltiKAKggw oEhFMarpUcsnCYiVXNSKNGMfEtO0t3/IyMRkMO9cmBHzsKk6r2iH9N71PQ/7A+9zDvyb Fjc6wMKQ0wmsRdU+ydCmbgeTSiePdxz791h9COrE4GR/DlvJ6krTx+ynYlFevL4ueVQD a3PTWA4D7PYH7/6iOAPRzFn77XTZQyErMLRHYCBaRGzkySTBPGmyjdKWIIqRmpf9BmOm mVng==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ijw+3yAHm4KT3YPIuDaRWTgx3RVodl4xWD8tiBBsePqbos3LT lTHDGJaZr3dTU0EehH3/ZpV/RePugh+MZHgRyRcABNUmrePPFA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzHGaSG4y1Bo3IOr/nQJTlio8GDKaobLJEvy0wug+AEB/ch5fk5flFlGyeZEND/gxkIoZ140wH8CkYvy4ghc28=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:94e5:: with SMTP id 92mr9086506wrr.316.1595609223786; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7bc1d0aab066453d967a35e4d44554c1@att.com> <alpine.OSX.2.23.453.2007231941390.17755@samuels-air> <e878c2d28aa54906ac8b9450ab8e7515@att.com> <FCB9D133-E118-4E09-A54D-0719FC584F8B@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <FCB9D133-E118-4E09-A54D-0719FC584F8B@akamai.com>
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:46:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJc3aaP6JX07jjVgiLrH9ik3t3eP0nj12wL8quHxnO5etVxTpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Follow-up from NomCom advisor discussion
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, Samuel Weiler <weiler@csail.mit.edu>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fc1d2805ab32b8d2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/byP_N3gxviZdGnAFpytaPeeiFyY>
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 16:47:08 -0000

Rich,

I think one of the challenges here may be that they still are counted
towards quarrom.   Also, what if there are 2 advisors, one which has the
duties specified as to not vote, and one that does no thave the specified.
It may leave room for ambiguity.

I do agree with Barbara that we seem to have hit a challenge where the
simplicity of the rule (all members are part of the nomcom body and all
members vote on non-selection items) can be construed as a problem (not
saying it is, or is not, but at least some feel that way).

If there is way to update the text (not sure what the full
ramifications are), it may be a reasonable way to proceed.

regards,

Victor K

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:40 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz=
40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> As I read RFC 8713, in particular 4.9, can't you invite someone to be an
> advisor, and that part of their duties are to abstain from all votes?
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email