Subject: UPDATED: WG Action: Conclusion of The Operation of the IESG/IAB Nominating and Recall Committees (nomcom) (fwd)

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:21:16 -0400 (EDT)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:45:03 -0400
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Subject: UPDATED: WG Action: Conclusion of The Operation of the IESG/IAB
    Nominating and Recall Committees (nomcom)

The Operation of the IESG/IAB Nominating and Recall Committees (nomcom) working
group in the General Area has concluded.

The IESG contact person is Harald Alvestrand.

The mailing list will be closed.

+++

With the publication of RFC 3777, "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation,
and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", the
work of the NOMCOM working group is finished.

On behalf of the community, this AD wishes to thank the group members, the
editor and the working group chair for their many hours of hard work and
dedication to a task well completed.

Thank you!

Harald Alvestrand

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:38:59 -0400 (EDT)

With the conclusion of the working group, I will be closing down the
mailing list.

I'll wait a week to do this since this is the week of the IETF, just in
case anyone has any last minute comments or questions.

The archive will remain available essentially indefinitely.

Jim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:06:32 +0200

Why? The normal convention is to keep the mailing list open
in case issues come up that might justify new activity.

(As I'm afraid one already did.)

    Brian

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 22:02:42 -0400 (EDT)

I didn't make the decision to close down the list, although I agree with
it.  My primary reason for agreeing with it is related to hosting the
list.  The list address is one of the single greatest magnets for spam
on my server.  It ranks right up there with every other IETF list I
host.  I'm sure others who host IETF lists have similar statistics.

Setting that aside, the list associated with every other NOMCOM revision
has closed when that work was completed, i.e., when the working group
closed.  Personally, I like this model.

When a working group closes it's mailing list should end also.  The
purpose of the list is to support the work of the working group.
Without a working group there's no one in charge of the list.  And in
today's email environment that's just unacceptable.

If a standard needs a "deployment" mailing list then let someone sponsor
it, i.e., be in charge of it and arrange for it to get hosted.  It is
consistent with my model for someone to volunteer to be in charge of an
existing list and voluteer to keep it active.  Absent that, no working
group, no list.

Just my opinion of course.

As to what to do with "new" issues that come up, perhaps that is a
problem that needs to be considered in a larger context.  One suggestion
is to check with the author and see if that person is keeping track.

Perhaps the IETF needs a "tool" for collecting suggestions/comments
about its documents so they can be considered during its next revision.
A blog might be good for this.

Jim

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

    Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:06:32 +0200
    From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    To: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Cc: [email-masked]
    Subject: Re: UPDATED: WG Action: Conclusion of The Operation of the
        IESG/IAB Nominating and Recall Committees (nomcom) (fwd)

        Brian

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:08:51 -0700

James and all,

  If the IETF or you would consider implementing Spf correctly, the
spam would be greatly reduced.

>     > The archive will remain available essentially indefinitely.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 08:48:20 -0400 (EDT)

Well, I disagree, but this is not the place to debate the merits of
SPF or any other spam reducing tool.

Jim

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Jeff Williams wrote:

    Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:08:51 -0700
    From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
    To: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
    Subject: Re: UPDATED: WG Action: Conclusion of The Operation of the
        IESG/IAB Nominating and Recall Committees (nomcom) (fwd)

    James and all,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 18:26:57 +0200

Jim,

Firstly I'm very sensitive to the spam magnet issue. In fact, when
the diffserv WG closed down, we killed its list for exactly that
reason, *but* activated a new list for continued discussion.

I don't see why nomcom is different from a technical topic - there
will inevitably be (hopefully minor) issues. But there is no
reason I would ever think to go to look at a web log just in case
something had been posted.

This isn't my call, but I believe the inevitable result will be
that any issues end up being debated on [email-masked], which
I don't think is optimal.

And I do think this needs to be clarified in IETF WG procedures,
but that is not a debate for this soon-to-be-ex-list.

      Brian

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 18:03:00 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

How is the pointer to this new list managed?  A working group's list is
normally referenced in its charter.  Even when it closes the old charter
is around or at least references to the old list are "around".

How does one make the "community" aware of the new list?

I am willing to keep the list active or provide a "new" list, if that's
what folks want to do.  I'm offering so we can see if folks want to
speak up in favor of it.  So far, I'm not sensing a "consensus" of
opposition to closing the list, although that's really for the Chair to
say.

Jim

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 16:16:44 -0700

> opposition to closing the list, although that's really for the Chair to

I assume you mean the "General Area AD to say."  The group no longer 
exists and thus no longer has a chair only and ex-chair.  The General 
Area Ad has requested the list be closed and I expect any decision to 
keep it open would be his decision as well.

As an individual who is very interested in NomCom I have no objection 
to there being a list for ongoing discussions and would join such a 
list.  I would even be willing to help administer such a list.

As chair, I had to curtail discussions, because of the charter, of 
radical changes one could have suggested to the IETF process for 
picking its leadership even though I knew there were those who had such 
an interest.  As an individual I think it might be interesting to have 
a space where radical revisions could be discussed by those who desired 
to do so.

a.

PS. As the ex-chair I thank everyone on this list for their 
participation in the WG.  I enjoyed working with all.

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 01:01:16 -0700

Jim and all,

  I wasn't offering a debate, only stating a good suggestion.  Of course
other methods could be deployed...  SPF merits speak for themselves
and are well known...  Hence your right no need for discussion of them
here.  Solving the "Spam Magnet" aspect of this or any replacement
forum for this one IS.  Hence my suggestion in the first place...

Regards,