Toerless, I agree with Mike's comment about disagreement with the result of a challenge, but let me add a substantive comment or two about your note (if you think it appropriate, to your message to the ISOC President). Inline --On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 01:43 +0200 Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear NomCom chair, > > I challenge your characterization of "the random selection > should have been done with..." as a justified ecision reason. > > I do not think there is adequate evidence from the RFCs that > that characterization is a mandatory interpretation of the > RFC. I am not the only one who said so. >... For better or worse, many of our procedural RFCs, not unlike many of our technical specifications, do not provide "mandatory interpretation"s of large numbers of things. If that were a requirement, we'd need to drop the use of SHOULD in specifications and we'd need to drop the convention that our leadership is given rather broad discretion when they think it is necessary, subject, of course, to appeals. So, if there is an ambiguity (apparently some people, including you given that mandatory interpretation comment, think there is) then the Nomcom Chair gets to decide. If one believes that the Nomcom Chair decided incorrectly, either because there is an ambiguity or because one reads the documents differently than she does, then you can appeal if you want to, but that means a discussion with the ISOC Present, not requesting (or demanding) that the Nomcom Chair reconsider. > I have also asked, but i have seen NO further attempt to cite > sentences from the RFC to prove that this is a necessary > reading of the RFCs, so for all intent and purpose, instead, > my questions and input have been explicitly been ignored. I can't speak for others, especially Barbara, but I, at least, tried to understand your argument, questions, and input, at least up to the point of concluding (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that you were repeating yourself. That is not ignoring you, much less doing so explicitly. I have seen no evidence that Barbara explicitly ignored you either. For me at least, it is just, in the end, disagreeing. john
