Apologies for not replying sooner. But, my house was being packed on Wednesday, loaded on the truck on Thursday, we cleaned out the old house on Friday, drove 800 miles on Saturday (and I ended up having to drive one of the cars the whole
way), and started putting the new house together on Sunday. I was totally off-line and blithely unaware of this storm.
I’ll be chatting with Victor and Suresh tomorrow. I’m also going to reach out to Luigi and Tal, to make sure they’re aware (in case they aren’t on this list). I’ll send an email Monday before 23:59 UTC.
Thanks for all your thoughtful discussion. Much appreciated.
Barbara
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Victor Kuarsingh
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 8:54 PM
To: Mike StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: The IETF List <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
All,
My understanding its under review. Sufficient time for community discussion and input.
P.S. serving as past chair advisor.
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
>>
>
|
