> On Aug 23, 2022, at 9:07 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:22 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I see an opposite way to game the system and no good solutions >> (or none better than what Rich (and Andrew) have decided it is >> best to do). > > +1 > > The problem with smart contracts is that they stop being smart the minute that any element of choice is introduced. > > The underlying problem here is that the decision procedure as specified is not rigid. It doesn't really matter who ends up having to make the choice, the problem is that a choice had to be made. I agree with Phillip here: the fact is that a choice has to be made (and we have established structure for such decision making). And I also dont think this would be the last time. IETF should continue to refine the nomcom process/procedure to fix all identified issues, that helps minimize the chances for invoking people to arbitrate. But I dont think the procedure could be made bullet-prove for all unforeseen future scenarios. just my 2 cents, Lixia > Deciding to break with past precedent due to a different interpretation of the rules is still a choice. I think that would be much worse than what Andrew decided. > > Just be thankful that what we are doing here isn't raising loans on badly drawn gifs of apes selling for the price of a house. > >
