How is my challenge any more a waste of community time than Mike's ? On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 01:37:18AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --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 > -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx
