IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IAOC Request for community feedback

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Tue, 23 October 2012 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 71C4611E80FF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.421
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.178, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lQ29+GFBj+wY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B647611E80FE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 203AC18C0A4; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:21:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Message-Id: <20121023192135.203AC18C0A4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:21:35 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 23 Oct 2012 19:21:36 -0000

    > From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>

    > When would you consider the office vacant?

The complete data on what attempts had been made to communicate with him were
given to us all, so we can all form our own individual opinion as to whether
sufficient conditions had been met.

    > I'm currently in jury duty - and sequestered for a major murder trial?
    > ... Trapped in a hospital for 6 weeks for traction?

In all of these cases one presumably wouldn't vanish without a word of
explanation. It's that, as much as the non-performance, that's an issue.

You know as well as I do that in a normal company, if an employee stopped
showing up for work with no notice, no communication about the situation,
and that went on for months, the person would find themselves terminated.


    > From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>

    > It is neither safe, nor appropriate, to assume that the subset of
    > people humming about this issue overlaps sufficiently with the subset
    > that hummed about establishing the procedure to justify this decision.

What, we can't change a procedure unless the set of people who previously
OK'd it now agree to change it? I don't think so. A hum is a hum is a hum.

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email