All,
My understanding its under review. Sufficient time for community discussion and input.
regards,
Victor K
P.S. serving as past chair advisor.
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 7:14 PM Mike StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
>>
>
