Eliot,
I have no problem with this interpretation to be proposed for an update
RFC to the current rules. I do appreciate the logic, also of Eliots
corollary. I do not think it is appropriate to assume consensus on
this interpretation without an actual RFC update to the rules that would
explicitly say so.
Specifically with the RFC as written now, i do not think it was
"inappropriate" for NomCom chair to have decided as she did in the
absence of better RFC text. Hence there is IMHO no ground to
contest the decision. The same IMHO would hold true for future NomComs
in the absence of more explicit RFC text.
Cheers
toerless
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 01:20:31PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Joe, Toerless, Mike:
>
> Yoav may be correct about the letter of the rule, but Mike is certainly correct about the spirit.
>
> Specifically:
>
> The RFC does not take into account all possible failure or exception scenarios. The chair is expected to adhere to the spirit of the process when the letter fails us. This may be one of those cases.
>
> The chair should avoid using discretion or influencing in any way the selection of specific individuals. That is why we produce an ordered list of randomly selected individuals from a pool.
> As a corollary corporate affiliation should only play a role in removals and not on additions. There should be no room for selective substitution on the part of the chair in this process.
>
> Eliot
>
> Full disclosure: I work for a company that would generally be viewed as a competitor to Huawei and affiliates. That same company could be viewed as a reason we have these sorts of limits on NOMCOM participation, so take this for what it???s worth.
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
