From esanchez@yaco.es Tue Jan 15 00:30:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: yaco-nomcom-tool@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: yaco-nomcom-tool@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C4F21F8B19 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:30:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 AdCMYonFH3ZI for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:30:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com (mail-wg0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DCF521F8B35 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:30:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id dr13so2531275wgb.25 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:30:30 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=PJ7+IzwvIuMc3pL/ZPQ6JJuLdzhnuRfg55SJCMkENlo=; b=byIOxpDPqXXqZODoE+48MSZAZqA6CnU8pTMWxxOafPezM8lhQRYZ3JbmcI3SG7MbhQ XH7/n+arzsjuAAuCURGUtEotROfgvnywJKmpNZLWFwvEl4jjQjL3uagn9gDJTIEYoaJ0 H1jWd1QiyfpQZ8YBp0Ym0qno2nFiZD7XKIBk8J3DOBsamnTnCqb3vURJRVE+JUZXIy2e vdZBJ+vsclqgqt6WRl149x8/+6cL5OHR5vdPw/qb6QUyfct5EVJw4v+Fsldj693bdCH5 zccUqQKvis5kU3UDq95cr+uduQLljggXB1v0hSvKUjBTOVex+749P/rhH1Yk8MxgL9GQ hylA== X-Received: by 10.194.20.231 with SMTP id q7mr139640871wje.44.1358238630083; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:30:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.8] ([46.25.205.167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s10sm2661962wiw.4.2013.01.15.00.30.28 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:30:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50F513A3.9090709@yaco.es> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:30:27 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Emilio_A=2E_S=E1nchez_L=F3pez=22?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Levkowetz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlPjFrZDDl3HtKMISzOoOb3xH3cPBXKb/A6+IHQuKazXeYrXEVqrhdptl20U2tg4sGx1kNW Cc: yaco-nomcom-tool@ietf.org Subject: [yaco-nomcom-tool] Question about merging nominations X-BeenThere: yaco-nomcom-tool@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the Yaco / Nomcom Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:30:32 -0000 Hi Henrik, We have a doubt about merging nominations. If some person has been nominated to the same position using different emails the tool provide the chair with an interface to merge this nominations into one. The question is what to do when the nominations we have to merge have different status? If the nominee has accepted one of them and the other one is pending there is no problem we can assert that the nomination is accepted. But what if the nominee has accepted one and rejected the other? Maybe we should keep the status of the first nomination. So if the chair choose to merge Nomination2 into Nomination1 then we keep the status of Nomination1 and ignore the status of Nomination2. The other questions is about questionnaires. What if the nominee has sent two different questionnaires using two different emails? I know that this case is a bit extreme, probably a nominee will never fill two times the same questionnaire, instead he will blame the chair about using only one email. But if we found this case, we should drop some questionnaire or we should keep two of them? Best, -- Emilio A. Sánchez esanchez@yaco.es From henrik@levkowetz.com Tue Jan 15 02:06:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: yaco-nomcom-tool@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: yaco-nomcom-tool@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEF821F874C for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:06:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 k2qxtlJcDVjl for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (merlot.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31::14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7832E21F87D2 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [2a01:3f0:1:0:e4bc:5743:b998:9be] (port=61492 helo=brunello.netnod.se) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Tv3Oh-0005Ah-Bu; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:05:37 +0100 Message-ID: <50F529EE.2030902@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:05:34 +0100 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130105 Thunderbird/10.0.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Emilio_A=2E_S=E1nchez_L=F3pez=22?= References: <50F513A3.9090709@yaco.es> In-Reply-To: <50F513A3.9090709@yaco.es> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:3f0:1:0:e4bc:5743:b998:9be X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: esanchez@yaco.es, yaco-nomcom-tool@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) Cc: yaco-nomcom-tool@ietf.org Subject: Re: [yaco-nomcom-tool] Question about merging nominations X-BeenThere: yaco-nomcom-tool@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the Yaco / Nomcom Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:06:02 -0000 Hi Emilio, On 2013-01-15 09:30 "Emilio A. Sánchez López" said: > Hi Henrik, > > We have a doubt about merging nominations. > > If some person has been nominated to the same position using > different emails the tool provide the chair with an interface to merge > this nominations into one. Right. > The question is what to do when the nominations we have to merge > have different status? If the nominee has accepted one of them and the > other one is pending there is no problem we can assert that the > nomination is accepted. But what if the nominee has accepted one and > rejected the other? > > Maybe we should keep the status of the first nomination. So if the > chair choose to merge Nomination2 into Nomination1 then we keep the > status of Nomination1 and ignore the status of Nomination2. I'd suggest that you instead look at the datestamp of the acceptance and rejection, and use the latest one. (I assume that both of the messages (the rejection and the acceptance) will be preserved.) > The other questions is about questionnaires. What if the nominee has > sent two different questionnaires using two different emails? I know > that this case is a bit extreme, probably a nominee will never fill two > times the same questionnaire, instead he will blame the chair about > using only one email. But if we found this case, we should drop some > questionnaire or we should keep two of them? Keep both. (Don't reduce information irretrievably if it's not needed.) Best regards, Henrik