It appears that Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said: >> step down. Either way, the system can be gamed. Whether the holes are >> important enough to worry about is for the IETF community to decide. > >Yeah, I'd even go one step further: I'd prefer a system where anyone's >decision about whether to say "I can't do it" isn't affected by who is >next on the list. If don't want the thought to come to my mind, ... I don't see how we could do that without creating other perverse incentives dependning on how the nomcom is reconsituted if someone declines, or without keeping the list secret which has other problems. This seems reminscent of Arrow's theorem which says there is no voting system that won't produce perverse results in some cases. The best we can do is to write down the rules, publish code that we believe implements the rules, and use it. R's, John
