IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Qualifying for NomCom

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 232DD12D0DA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-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 Chbd-4xYek5J for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x234.google.com (mail-lb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::234]) (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 1D8E612D655 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-x234.google.com with SMTP id vo2so55243747lbb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GHble0JGMZIEu6aejB+vv2Bhi+hB/tXpKj3bZXRhcec=; b=HEvdnTFlKEP+kT5tG/CwIidGfVWf7Q6YvTI3nujIxWrZrvSpsitfrASsNjbLfLcj6e Hs2Bhhx214arcVp23bIDvqIKQv2Y90WKglx7/T6L2UZQwtjmcWhuc5AyjnNCH62bxZLO Js6MbnZ7gOBOGEnbuZ/kSsTzkWI6d+1Bz7+iWtTYTmMQjgH4bG6DyuJHM/VCf9U2Fd6+ UCNFES9A+D/+cNSychooyEHct/zVEc9vsVojAFiQOL/6Sqg39L4vvdK6ULNhirMlnSCL 2hriBdyTjXqyyZHqeCyxDIWt+/KBn///JmsaPhH7b1Zm6ZmTlgsQWfBdnenEzmYo/uWl EmfA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GHble0JGMZIEu6aejB+vv2Bhi+hB/tXpKj3bZXRhcec=; b=aUa+3M2bfcQ8ctv4X2ho6s0OrWUA0pfz0lQiClA7ZySvrv8VmTPOJiT6L27nb7yG+Z NUrCXlNmMx+Vfr4ufK9kHjgUd9lgSw4K4Fvc9hff6XRXcgCuP+/hv+NSxSico47+yisQ UBUS3emwtzV8b7uTwVJthAvMN7PHRJ5ey0xc3pcBFCgaHHewYXkaj8elQE7Jwn3NjRmS 6S4u7N4PyYVkmnCP85d4uqkARUJTl9Ter7Mkii49J00VsWrG75TXd1CURPq48mAm3Z5/ jf2PITMp6N8FpZTdfrnKQRjJ/8kJUbNL0xhKzx5MqM3dZkLb6FTjkpzTkzeewjjUtP5L ynTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJu4VnK/TE3DeBi1FUQailTEgzN5F6sEqHEe0NHJsgsd//8TS05baDDYASAANLqIc0v1LZXO8C2IhurSg==
X-Received: by 10.112.161.41 with SMTP id xp9mr1946353lbb.133.1460053222329; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.40.136 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:67c:370:176:ec62:80b3:91d7:df8a]
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbhYRqw7fXHzYY0=W-CpmeHeDdaZx3z2Qg0cA2aMrmVwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwY0FuDp5=RMFEhUMtkK=XNDxX2dogvVY7+OSy88jrrvOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=SYpo-CiHoc07Ukb04Kb1LGV2=BPPyRLUsaqyLM9Hbwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbhYRqw7fXHzYY0=W-CpmeHeDdaZx3z2Qg0cA2aMrmVwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:19:42 -0300
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1nqmC7NJyg2M6Na8vUj8T-qObO-1gHFEXZzrobb3oOQhA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c26b2aabbb5d052fe92128"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/s6clvp9dQru_xkfMq6KSqLjMftg>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:20:31 -0000

Right.   So that's not what "consensus" means.   Suggest you reread RFC
7282.   It's not normative, but I think it's helpful to reread when you
feel that you have failed to find consensus.   It contains some good advice
about getting to consensus.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by "coming to consensus?"
>>
>
> There was no clear agreement on a new set of qualifying criteria, and the
> discussion faded out.
>
> -MSK
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email