Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt

Margaret Wasserman <margaretw42@gmail.com> Tue, 21 August 2012 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <margaretw42@gmail.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 E603B21F8767 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 EJy9tsYScUfY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494C321F8757 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so241580vbb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=mCG2x47aqZ8EAmZaPz5f7b2h3jxi4YNgmyCDhNiwUXI=; b=o7CJqnHbuJjl5NyFCgzaB/1rQrojNlaYWU+7nTo5pCERek223AYRJrav0xvjfLOU7g yJFXmDDRo7axFDfBiwY/XJsDcOAXnvCcIUZz+8WpGmL9T5G0Q6d3bR0iWKnkkrOX765N jprDeLFtuU/LAyYnrNyMmOHz0flznVD9eliZ9BZodz2oLJlIBmof3bnkvZZQ2d/dXVz+ yaxtFBDYqLds2UGAyLfxV6zSryEEbBS91e3koWfcxIB31QZzD5VSWeZHd8ytku/Zb+Rr /d4HVAHM6ohwZArGa/qAu6DJlYRdxqY8fge/Lv+0NU3sa1hOwzpbFupbBbVxIsUKpYVs dwqA==
Received: by 10.52.38.42 with SMTP id d10mr12297949vdk.132.1345579879262; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lilac-too.home (pool-71-184-120-122.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [71.184.120.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l9sm1058026ves.1.2012.08.21.13.11.16 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaretw42@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLvvELf5ENAbOsEgt+7ZBGdA7uUf-iCFHoGw13u0jts_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:11:04 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9F618894-B14E-49E5-B520-1E13AD439FE0@lilacglade.org>
References: <133201cd7f85$325f59a0$971e0ce0$@olddog.co.uk> <CAC4RtVB=N=CP7ManPZ=Hu65QbrX5WXnWRFFDZ-CpOcKQyqRWqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEF96=yCWp7e7AUJ3iBn=gyaX8d9DxsLGL7=N00Ha8cUFw@mail.gmail.com> <142e01cd7fd7$54725e50$fd571af0$@olddog.co.uk> <CALaySJLvvELf5ENAbOsEgt+7ZBGdA7uUf-iCFHoGw13u0jts_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:31:06 -0700
Cc: draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility@tools.ietf.org, adrian@olddog.co.uk, ietf@ietf.org
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, 21 Aug 2012 20:11:21 -0000

Why do you want to rule out employees of those groups?

I don't think that most of them would have any interest in volunteering for the nomcom, but why would it be a problem if they did?  I mean, I could picture someone who worked for the RFC Editor who was also technically involved in the IETF, like Aaron Falk used to be, and I don't know why we would want to disqualify someone like that from volunteering for the nomcom.

Thoughts?

Margaret


On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

>> How about asking Heather for the appropriate term?
>> Seems easier than guessing :-)
> 
> Good idea.  The point here is to address the regular, paid employees,
> not any people appointed to advise, nor any regular IETF folks who
> might do occasional contracting.  I'll see if Heather has any ideas.
> 
> Barry