|
“Going down the list’ is the way nomcom chairs have handled this issue. As noted by Joel and others. Keep in mind that the way RFC 8713 is written the “repeat the random selection process” only impacts the person that is not available or invalid. People that are eligible and have been identified by the random selection process do not
change. So running the random process again with new seeds and an undefined process to create the a new (smaller) list of volunteers seems troublesome. This would be new territory. I understand people like to object to things, but this isn’t a topic that should cause the current nomcom to be further delayed. If anyone really objects to precedent, write an individual draft and lets discuss making the wording better
in RFC 8713. Causing the nomcom process to be delayed will not benefit the community, however, fixing the RFC would help provide clarity for future nomcoms. -scott. From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Salz, Rich
Mike StJohns raised the same concern about gaming the system on August 11 [1]. As we all know, it is VERY difficult to write a technical specification in English. RFC 8713 points to RFC 3797 as a possible method, and that says to ignore ineligible people. Is someone who doesn’t respond to email ineligible? Does
8713 contradict itself by calling out “can’t reach” and giving special instructions, while recommending 3797 which says something that could be viewed differently? At this point, I would suggest that if anyone objects to “go down the list” they should email me saying they object, so that we can start the appeal process. For the future, I opened a “more clarification needed” errata. -Rich Salz, 2022 NomCom Chair [1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OCPgpz9ryBNd2gwd-cHUjlw5GlE/ |
