Yes. On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 09:17:49PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > 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 > > -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx
