Re: One week left to object

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



  • I'm not proposing that. I'm saying that you rerun the selection process with the remaining eligible candidates to fill the requisite number of remaining spots.

 

A clarifying question: be “rerun the selection process” you mean starting from announcing random seeds. Those seeds must not be currently available of course.

 

Second question: “remaining eligible candidates.”  Ah, the ambiguities of English. Do you mean to remove those picked? Obviously, I have to treat all volunteers who would be a third member of the same company as ineligible. Do I remove all those people and publish a new list? If so, is that list subject to a challenge wait? It must be, to make sure I didn’t delete someone incorrectly. Suppose someone from one of the companies with two representatives steps down, do I not remove them? Suppose I remove them and then they step down, do I repeat the add/post/challenge cycle? That leads me to think that removing “third member” is a bad idea. But then I wonder about the inconsistency with removing already-picked people. Gaming seems to be still possible.

 

FWIW, I find historical precedent, historical vagueness in English, and Don Eastlake’s posting [1] compelling.

 

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/V37bqFz8ANGAgeqB0t2_vs1qlJc/


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux