Re: ISOC trustees receive POISED report
William Allen Simpson <bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu> Mon, 14 December 1992 22:31 UTC
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14739; 14 Dec 92 17:31 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19666; 14 Dec 92 17:33 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14712; 14 Dec 92 17:31 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14687; 14 Dec 92 17:30 EST
Received: from vela.acs.oakland.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19644; 14 Dec 92 17:32 EST
Received: from Simpson.DialUp.Merit.edu (via.ws04.merit.edu) by vela.acs.oakland.edu with SMTP id AA26147 (5.65c+/IDA-1.4.4); Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:32:09 -0500
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:10:01 -0400
Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: William Allen Simpson <bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>
Message-Id: <835.bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>
To: poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Cc: ietf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Reply-To: bsimpson@morningstar.com
Subject: Re: ISOC trustees receive POISED report
> From: Carl Malamud <carl@malamud.com> > I'm not sure we really need to have anything more from POISED for > the interim selection process. I believe that enough details are > in place so that the chair can proceed with that system and it would > be appropriate to get this out of a management-by-committee mode. > Carl, I disagree. I have not seen the RFC on the selection process, nor the revised standardization process RFC, nor the RFCs on the composition of the IETF and IESG and IAB (probably 3 separate ones). Now that the ISoc Board has approved the general direction chosen, it is time to write down the specifics. We are a working group, and we have some product to get out. Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
- ISOC trustees receive POISED report Lyman Chapin
- Re: ISOC trustees receive POISED report Carl Malamud
- Re: ISOC trustees receive POISED report William Allen Simpson