Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Toerless,

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 06:02:45AM +0200, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> 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. 

Just to be fully clear: as I understand it, you are not disputing the
outcome (since, if the matter is up to the discretion of the NomCom chair,
it is a permissible outcome), but only the assertion that "the random
selections should have been done" in a specific way (with the argument that
this is an unjustified claim, since no one has pointed to specific RFC text
that requires it).

Is that correct?

Thanks,

Ben

> 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
> 




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux