Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process

[Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 11 Jul 2020, at 6:46, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

Knowing Tal, I’d guess he is amused by all the lawyering going on here. But we usually treat NomCom membership as a burden to be shouldered, not as a prize to be won. So fairness to the candidate doesn’t come into play.

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 ?

The rules are against accidental stacking of the NomCom. There are plenty of ways for EvilCorp to game the system by having its IETF people work as independent consultants paid by EvilCorp’s customers rather than directly by EvilCorp.