> I think it's actually simpler than that. If any of those 7 objected to
their exclusion, then I think we'd probably have to rerun the process.
It's not so much demographics as it is fairness.
At this point, I believe that https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8713.html#name-announcement-of-selection-r is the first step. Someone has to send me an email saying that they challenge all the nominees because the volunteer pool was wrong. I have 48 hours to reply. I promise to reply "I disagree" as soon as I see the mail so that if they wish to escalate, per https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8713.html#name-dispute-resolution-process as soon as possible to avoid further delays.
> ps - we've had problems with the selection process the last 3(?) times.
It would be good to have a single unified listing of what those problems were. If you want to post them, great, or email me and I will add it to my "nomcom diary." This thread is an attempt to identify one such problem, and explain that it is being addressed.
> In particular, the
current model allows for "Hmm... if I refuse to serve then X is next on
the list and they would mostly vote like me" types of calculation on the
part of selectees.
That's different from a mistake. You are describing someone gaming the system, and this was an operational mistake. I think it is important to keep the two separate as the latter is more easily addressed while the former would probably require a new RFC.
-Rich Salz, 2022 NomCom chair
