On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:55:36PM -0700, Joseph Touch wrote:
> > What am i overlooking here ?
>
> Luigi???s new affiliation disqualifies Tai.
>
> If Luigi wants to step out, that???s his decision - but he doesn???t get to then control the fact that Tai gets put back in. That???s the ???but there is now a Huawei slot??? issue - so, to answer your first question, planet Earth.
If a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the list
of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other volunteers have
the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who
will determine the appropriate action
I don't see any further constraints than letting it be up to the NomCom
chair to decide what appropriate action is.
Given how Luigi could have simply said "i withdraw from serving", an
interpretation like the one Michael and you are alluding to would just
create an incentive in similar future case for volunteers to not be fully
forthcoming as to their motivation to withdraw so as not to punish
colleagues in a new employer they just joined. Thats quite silly.
If i compare the silly EvilEmpire theories invented in support of the
argument vs. the simple rule that its NomCom chairs decision as i think
also the RFC says is IMHO the much more logical conclusion. And given
how the existing 2-only rule is already discrimination, its also a lot
more logical for the NomCom chair to be acting without paranoia.
But this is not how it ends. Now the demand is not to actually remove
only person (Luigi) who was forthcoming, trying to be a good IETF'er,
but also a second person (Tal). If you are getting enough support to
misread 7437, then at least acknowledge that in hindsight and
misunderstanding the rules like you propose to, Luigi and i think
NomCom chair as well would have simply concluded to keep Luigi and drop Tal
instead of dropping both of them.
Cheers
Toerless
> >
>
> >> The right thing is to re-run the process and see what the result is.
> >
> > rfc3797 section 5.1, paragraph 3.
>
> Mike already spoke to this point.
>
> >> Otherwise, as is being seen, one person can ???game??? who is on the committee. That???s exactly what the detailed automated process is intended to prevent.
> >
> > And if 99% of NomCom qualified people are from one company,
> > we can't build a NomCom. Please do not use ridiculous theories
> > to justify changes in process or mishandling of the existing
> > rules.
>
> Conflict of interest is based on whatever anyone (including me) thinks COULD be a motivation.
>
> That concept is no more ridiculous than the automated system that???s been created to go out of our way to avoid it.
>
> Joe
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
