Subject: Re: Question regarding new rules for Mid term vacancies

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 00:19:28 -0800

Avri,

Monday, December 16, 2002, 1:52:52 AM, you wrote:
Avri> This is the question of whether the voting members of one
Avri> year's nomcom should be excluded from volunteering or serving
Avri> as voting members on the following year's nomcom.

what problem is created by having someone on both nomcoms?  (I can think of
no real problem, or else people would be excluded from serving on
consecutive nomcoms.)

unless there is a real problem that is serious, it would be better to ignore
the issue.

d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 15:52:20 -0800

Dave and all,

  Dave, as you should know the problem(s) are rather obvious
and numerous as well...  They have been discussed on a number
of occasions, which you should already know, and I believe that
you do know...  Hence your hyperbole here is rather unproductive
at a minimum...

Dave Crocker wrote:

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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:10:18 -0800

> you do know...  Hence your hyperbole here is rather unproductive

hmmm...  i seem to recall being involved with the nomcom rules from the
beginning, but i don't seem to recall the obvious/numerous problems to which you
refer.

perhaps you would be kind enough to briefly enumerate the problems as you see
them?

/mtr

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:18:37 -0800

Marshall and all,

> beginning, but i don't seem to recall the obvious/numerous problems to which you

  I am sorry to hear that your memory is less than optimum.  Perhaps it is
due to the ravages of aging. >;)  If I may be so bold or presumptuous,
perhaps a regular regiment of taking some Genko Bolba tablets twice
daily would improve your memory loss situation.

> perhaps you would be kind enough to briefly enumerate the problems as you see

  Certainly.  I will be very brief as well.

- One problem with what Avri is referring to is that serving in both or following
years Noncom's is that you may encourage or promote cliquish behavior
which usually leads to lock step processes and stymies new ideas..

Regards,

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:17:05 -0500

> unless there is a real problem that is serious, it would be better to ignore

I think the problem involved a possible confusion between the tasks of the
old nomcom and of the new nomcom.  I don't think this was seen as a serious
problem, just a possible issue involved in the change of rules and 
therefore
it was brought up.  Also it would possibly place added confidentiality 
burdens on
the person(s) serving in both as they would need to keep discussions 
occurring
in the new nomcom private from folks serving in the old nomcom.  This burden
of compartmentalized confidentiality would also apply to the nomcom chair of
the old nomcom serving as liaison to the new nomcom.  Since information is
allowed to flow from a previous nomcom into a future nomcom, the 
confidentiality
issue would not occur in that direction.

I have not heard of anyone feeling this overlap in service would be a large
problem.  Does anyone on the list think this overlap in service is a 
problem?

a.

-- 
Avri Doria
http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:28:08 -0800

Avri and all,

  No this is not really a large problem, but it is one of several problems.
I listed one other on this thread earlier...  What surprises me is that
we are again rehashing this situation yet again, and Dave is suggesting to
just ignore the whole situation...  ???

Regards,

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:52:50 -0800

Folks,

>> you do know...  Hence your hyperbole here is rather unproductive

Marshall> perhaps you would be kind enough to briefly enumerate the problems as you see
Marshall> them?

Please, no.

That was Jeff Williams pretending to reply to me.

For those needing a refresher course:

     <http://www.creepyneighbors.com/JWfaqs/08018.html>

d/

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 21:21:45 -0800

Dave and all,

  Another more interesting and honest review or Mr. Crocker can be
reviewed at: http://www.dnso.com/incompetence/crocker/

Regards,