On Thursday, August 31, 2006 06:43:53 AM -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Furthermore the absence of a complaint makes things worse not better.
Phill, I can assure you from personal knowledge that at least one complaint _was_ made. As Brian noted, Andrew took action to correct the issue before the formal dispute resolution process was invoked. And before you ask, no, I will not tell you who made the complaint, but I will say that I was not consulted on the issue of how to fix the problem, and that I don't believe the complaintant I know about was consulted either.
Given the nature of the complaint (that a volunteer was ineligible), I believe there were two reasonable courses of action. One is to remove the name from the list before running the random process, and the other is to run the process with the name, but discard any selection of that name.
If the error had been discovered before the random data became available, the first choice would have been the obvious one. However, it was not, and the situation is complicated by the fact that the list of volunteers did not become available in time for anyone to challenge eligibility prior to the random data becoming available. Even before the error in the list was discovered, I considered complaining about the timing issue and suggesting the remedy of running the process with new random data that would not become available before people had a chance to object (in other words, the same remedy that Andrew ended up applying).
If you or anyone else feels that there is a problem, the correct course of action as described by RFC 3777 is to bring the issue to the nomcom chair and then, if the situation is not resolved to your satisfaction, take it to the ISOC President as a formal dispute. Nowhere does RFC 3777 suggest that a suitable remedy is to complain on a public mailing list that you were not personally consulted.
-- Jeff _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf