Re: NomCom selection Fwd: Notification for draft-eastlake-rfc3797bis-00.txt

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

 



See my other email for the answer to this... we had crossing messages.

On 4/25/2023 5:29 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:
The problem is that we already have difficulty keeping to a schedule. If we have to have a sequence of

find random sources in the near future

announce random sources

allow protest of random sources

get random results

allow time for confirmation / objection to the random result

then we are adding a lot of time, potentially several iterations, to the process.  Is the risk you are raising worth the cost and complexity?  (And is it worth making the nomcom chair's job that much more complicated?  We already have trouble finding qualified people willing to do the job.)

Yours,

Joel

On 4/25/2023 5:21 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 4/25/2023 3:22 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
I don't think re-randomize is what we should be doing.  Just go to the next one on the initial list.

The problem with that is gaming the system.  Say I'm selected, but the next on the list is someone from my organization that may have more time on their hands.  I can drop off without my organization losing a vote.  AIRC that was an actual problem for a previous nomcom.   An alternate scenario is that I'm an independent contractor with substantial portions of my income coming from X, and say that an X employee is next on the list. I might be subject to pressure or remuneration to drop off.

Fore knowledge of the outcome is power of sorts and subject to misuse.  Better to make sure at any point where a decision is made, those decisions are independent from later events.

Later, Mike






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

  Powered by Linux