John,
NomCom chair did not write that she used discretion, she declared
what read like a statement of rules. This characterization i disagree
with. I said from the beginning that i think NomCom chair has
discretion. Mike disagreed with that.
Cheers
Toerless
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:53:23PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> 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
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
