Hmm. She’s overdue, but it’s a weekend so.... Mike Sent from my iPad > On Jul 12, 2020, at 17:23, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 >> >
