Hi Yoav - Let me try and explain why I think you're making claims that
don't meet the reasonableness test by using the example from 5.1
of RFC3797. Let's pretend for a moment, that Luigi, upon seeing the
presumptive list and his selection suddenly remembers that instead
of attending 3 of 5 meetings, he'd registered for one of those
meetings, but was unable to attend. He didn't end up cancelling,
so a record keeping error had him as eligible. He reports his
ineligibility, he's skipped over (per second para of 5.1), and the
next person on the list is selected. It doesn't matter that the
Nomcom chair had announced that he was selected, once he's
ineligible, the list gets corrected based on the input data (of
the ordered list, the input seeds, and the fact of Luigi's
ineligibility, and the various organizational associations). That's not running the clock backwards, that's reinterpreting the
result of the selection (and the down-selection of too many from a
single company) in the face of updated input data.
In this case, the chair ran the process and provided a
presumptive list. Luigi took a look at it, realized he was listed
with an incorrect organization and the chair made a discretionary
call based on Luigi's request and provided a new presumptive list
based on that request rather than providing a new presumptive list
based solely on the data at hand. Again, the presumptive list
changed by reinterpreting the selection data. That's not running
the clock backwards (nor was the first example). And
specifically, Luigi was not disqualified from serving, so he
doesn't get skipped over in the order.
And these are very different cases. In the first case, Luigi is disqualified. In the second case, neither Luigi nor Tal are disqualified. And addressing your pps, disqualified is very different from "eliminated as exceeding the limit of 2 from an organization”.. Someone is either qualified or not qualified, but whether they are eliminated or not is situation dependent. If Luigi has taken himself out of consideration at the same time as revealing his employment by Huawei, then Tal needs not be eliminated.
Your argument hinges on treating the revelation and volunteering to be removed as two separate events. They are not. From the chair’s email:
Luigi Iannone has informed me his affiliation has recently changed to "Huawei". That would make 3 Huawei people, which means one must be disqualified.
Luigi requested that, since he was the person who didn't mention this prior to selection, he should be the one removed. I have no problem with this, so I will honor this request rather than removing Tal Mizrahi (as the last of the Huawei people selected).
Clearly, Luigi requested to be removed because both he and the NomCom chair agreed with an interpretation like mine. If the powers that be (which AFAIK is the NomCom chair) decide that this is a wrong interpretation, he should at least be allowed to withdraw his resignation which was made in error. |
