On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 08:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> 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".
See my reply to Joseph.
> > 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).
parsing failed, please rephrase.
> 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.
Which to me means that the appropriate action for NomCom chair should have
been to disqualify Luigi because 5.1 is about not to readjucate other
admitted nomcom members (my reading).
Also just logical it makes more sense. If i was Tal, it would be quite
annoying to be kicked out after the announcement because of somebody
elses affiliation change. Whereas if i was in Luigis place i would have
been fine to be taken off the list for me given how the employer change would
have been my decision.
Of course i haven't really thought about what i would think about the
improbable stochastically impossible evil conspiracy theory that was
invented in this thread, but if IETF starts to make rules
assuming large companies are such EvilCorps and ignore probabilities,
should IETF then still accept money from the same big corporations ?
Cheers
Toerless
> -Ben
>
>
> > The argument made on the list is to violate section 5.1 of rfc3793 AFAIK.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Toerless
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
