--On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 06:02 +0200 Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> 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. Understood. But consider where we are now, given the above. Possibility 1: Barbara used discretion in interpreting the rules. If she is entitled to do that, then you can appeal the decision made with that discretion, but cannot challenge it. Possibility 2: Barbara read the rules in a certain way that led to her current list and result. You can claim the way she read the rules was improper and appeal on that basis, but you have no basis for challenging the list. and, I guess, Possibility 3: You believe Barbara should have stated whether she applied discretion or read the rules in a particular way and object to her not doing to. I suppose you could appeal that although my personal opinion is that it would be a waste of the community's time (your opinion may, of course, differ). But, again, that is not a basis on which you can challenge the current list. While I was not explicit about it before, I believe those are all of the cases. And they lead to exactly the same place: if you want to pursue this further, take it up with the ISOC President. I would encourage you to first ask what you expect to accomplish, but that, again, is up to you. Finally, as others have suggested, if you think the rules in this area need clarification, I strongly encourage you to produce an I-D that amends/updates the current specs or replaces them and/or to propose a WG or BOF to address those questions. I won't promise to support you in that, but I think it is the only possible way to make actual progress. best, john
