I had thought that this was considered resolved after multiple threads in the ietf@ mailing list. This thread, among others.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/S5W5hjCpld2ZSmUsjhM96p5cDNY/ But it probably deserves a summary, here. RFC 3797 (quoted by Kyle) says > > The best way to handle this is to maintain the announced schedule, > > INCLUDE in the published pool all those whose eligibility is > > uncertain and to keep the published pool list numbering IMMUTABLE > > after its publication. If someone in the pool is later selected by > > the algorithm and random input but it has been determined they are > > ineligible, they can be skipped and the algorithm run further to make > > an additional selection. I had said the only thing I considered normative from 8713 was the algorithm. Others, including Mary Barnes, explained that this was wrong; I retracted that and agreed that the right thing is to follow the quoted paragraph above. I was wrong to use a list that was modified after I posted the final. It was my mistake to not notice and remove various Board members until after the July 25 posting. But the process has mechanisms to handle that and that is what I (belatedly)
followed. Hope this addresses the concern. -Rich Salz, 2022 NomCom chair. |
