On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 04:16:20AM +0200, Toerless Eckert wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:28:01PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > > On which planet did this happen ? > > > How do you come to interpret what happened in that way ? > > > Luigi declined to serve. Thats all. > > > > I'm not sure that we actually have enough information to say that. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/o8p6rh9boOs65QTTIpBb73t-fV4/ > > says "has informed [the Nomcom chair] his affiliation has recently > > changed". That's not exactly "has said he cannot serve", and doesn't say > > anything about when the affiliation changed with respect to the timeline of > > the Nomcom selection process. Is there other information available that > > I'm missing (n.b. I'm quite behind on IETF mail at the moment)? > > Sure, but yada yada yada -> he decided that he did not want to serve. I still don't see that as the only possibly conclusion possible from the available data. I see a difference between "he concluded that he could not comply with the rules and still serve" and "he decided that he did not want to serve". > Aka: How is all the justification how he arrived at that decision relevant ? > > And even if the reasons where relevant, for which i can not find > any evidence in the relevant RFCs, then i can't see how this woud > have changed the outcome. > > And even if he would have decided that he did want to serve, it > would have been up to NomCom chair to decide (my reading of the RFC), > and but i can't seriously not think of how a NomCom chair would have > kicked out anyone else (from that company) than the person newly announcing > the affiliation. My understanding is that we do not know that it's about anyone's specific with (other than to comply with the BCPs, I guess). It might be, but it might just be about complying with the BCPs. Specifically, Section 4.17 of RFC 7437 makes a prohibition regarding "volunteers with the same primary affiliation may be selected". I read that as saying that the "selection" occurs when the randomness is finalized and the 3797 algorithm run, and thus that the relevant affiliation is the primary affiliation at that time. If the affiliation at that time is disclosed after that time, then we are into the Section 5.1 of 3797 case that you mention below. -Ben > The argument made on the list is to violate section 5.1 of rfc3793 AFAIK. > > Cheers > Toerless
