On 23 Aug 2022, at 15:31, John Levine wrote:
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.
Can you give an example of what you're thinking about? Remember, the
idea is you randomly pick 10, and then if someone says no, the other 9
continue and you randomly pick a replacement from the remaining
volunteers.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
