I suggest that at this point, we should wait and see the NomCom chair's response to the challenge. After that, there is a defined dispute resolution procedure if people don't agree with her resolution. Regards Brian Carpenter On 13-Jul-20 02:19, Toerless Eckert wrote: > It seems to me as if better RFC text, it could IMHO pick either of the > following two options to amend the text we have now: > > A) removal of Tal - because of re-evaluation of hash-list. > B) removal of Luigi - because of new disclosure about his affiliation. > > To me, B) looks more logical because it maintains a bit more of the > "individual contributor" pretense the IETF claims to have (and directly violates > with the max2 rule). Aka: It only eliminates a person for which there is a > new disclosure, not a different person. > > Any disucssion between Luigi and NomCom chair to me just looks like an > attempt to decide which one of these two cases would be best match the > intent of the process given how the RFCs are not prescriptive enough. > > Both options i think match Eliots corollary of removal based on association. > > The more important corollary from Eliot not well written down either is the > non-addition based on association, e.g.: If Luigi would have been Huawei initially > and would have left Huawei instead, then that would not raise Tal from the max2 > eliminations of the initial run. > > Cheers > Toerless > > P.S.: If there was a new RFC done, you should ask for the rights to use the > names Luigi and Tal, otherwise use Alice and Bob ;-)) > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 01:28:16AM -0700, Rob Sayre wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 11:00 AM Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> I don't agree with your reading of the RFC. But, even if I did, it seems >> unwise to do this kind of negotiation. Your reading grants the chair a lot >> of discretion, but does not make a case for this particular decision. >> For example, one relevant piece of information might be who the next few >> candidates would have been. >> >> It would be a shame to call any of these into question: >> >> - selection of NomCom members >> - the actions of their nominees >> - the IETF itself >> >> If those seem questionable, there is no benefit to publishing an RFC over >> an Internet Draft. >> >> thanks, >> Rob >
