BOUNCE poised@neptune.tis.com: Non-member submission from ["Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee@cybercash.com>]
"by way of \"John C. Kelley\" <johnk@tis.com>" <poised-approval@tis.com> Wed, 06 November 1996 21:49 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa14246; 6 Nov 96 16:49 EST
Received: from portal.ex.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23416; 6 Nov 96 16:49 EST
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id QAA05547 for ipsec-outgoing; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:41:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961106165645.009ef380@pop.hq.tis.com>
X-Sender: johnk@pop.hq.tis.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 11:56:45 -0500
To: ipsec@tis.com
From: "by way of \"John C. Kelley\" <johnk@tis.com>" <poised-approval@tis.com>
Subject: BOUNCE poised@neptune.tis.com: Non-member submission from ["Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee@cybercash.com>]
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: list
Approved New.poised Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 12:59:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee@cybercash.com> To: "John W. Stewart III" <jstewart@mci.net> Cc: poised@TIS.COM Subject: Re: The NomCom Selection In-Reply-To: <199611051657.LAA01847@postoffice.Reston.mci.net> Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961105123400.8908H-100000@cybercash.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII How about replacing the current: (4) Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 2 of the last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer. (5) Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting members of the IAB, and sitting members of the IESG may not volunteer. (6) The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool of names of volunteers. with: (4) Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 2 of the last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer. The list of volunteers shall be made public before the selection of voting volunteers. (5) Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting members of the IAB, and sitting members of the IESG may not volunteer. (6) The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool of names of volunteers by a method publicly verifiable as unbiased and fair. For example, selecting from the pool using an exact preannounced algorithm based on future public random numbers such as public lottery winning nubmers. This leaves 5 unchanged, adds publishing the volunteer list to 4, so people can see if they have been left out and see if some they do not think eligible have been included, and adds one sentence plus a few additional words to item 6. I think this proposed wording demonstrates that the pages of specific procedures some were arguing against isn't necessary and wasn't what I had in mind anyway. If someone wants, I'd by happy to write some code into which you enter the volunteer list length and a string of digits and it spews out the list of selectees. This could be issued as informational RFC in source code so anyone could compile and run it. Donald PS: Some other comments I had after looking at the exact wording in the current RFC: I'm a bit surprised the attendance criteria have been tightened up so much. 2 out of the last 3 meetings is pretty stringent. As I recall, it was originally much more lax (like 2 meetings ever). And I think that if I was writing this, I'd exclude ISOC employees and members of the IETF secretariate, essentially anyone whose attendance at IETF was being paid for by part of the I* mechanism, from being on the nomcom. But these are minor points in my mind and I'm not suggesting changing them unless others feel it important. They don't compare with fixing the selection to be demonstrably fair. On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, John W. Stewart III wrote: > Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 11:57:56 -0500 > From: John W. Stewart III <jstewart@mci.net> > To: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com> > Cc: poised@TIS.COM > Subject: Re: The NomCom Selection > > > the topic is whether something should be added to the > nomcomm procedures such that the selection of the > nomcomm from the pool of volunteers is independantly > verifiable. the last several messages have basically > been in favor of that in principle. there's a specific > proposal on the table from donald eastlake. are we > getting to consensus on adding something to the docs > about this? does someone want to propose specific text? > > /jws > ===================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1 508-287-4877(tel) dee@cybercash.com 318 Acton Street +1 508-371-7148(fax) dee@world.std.com Carlisle, MA 01741 USA +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA) http://www.cybercash.com http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html
- BOUNCE poised@neptune.tis.com: Non-member submiss… by way of "John C. Kelley" <johnk@tis.com>