Sorry for jumping in late; I was a bit out of commission last week and
have just caught up.
On 16 Aug 2022, at 16:04, Scott Mansfield wrote:
I understand people like to object to things...
Scott, please don't characterize like that. I (and I expect EKR and
others) object to the approach taken because I truly think it's
problematic. We don't want to guess at the non-responder's motives, but
the fact that bad motives could result in a particular NomCom selection
somewhat under the control of the non-responder is not a good thing.
Doing a new random draw of the remaining volunteers seems like the more
appropriate way address this situation. That said:
...but this isn’t a topic that should cause the current nomcom to be
further delayed.
The decision has been made at this point by Andrew. I don't think it was
the ideal decision, but I also don't think it's a constitutional crisis
that needs to bring the entire thing to a halt.
If anyone really objects to precedent, write an individual draft and
lets discuss making the wording better in RFC 8713.
As soon as Lars picks my replacement for GENDISPATCH, I'll be happy to
add some text to whoever is holding the pen.
Causing the nomcom process to be delayed will not benefit the
community, however, fixing the RFC would help provide clarity for
future nomcoms.
I'm not sure I agree with the former, but certainly I agree with the
latter.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
