Granted 3777 does not require the consultation of the community on disputes involving the NOMCOM but given the highly unusual nature of the problem at hand and the tendency of the IETF toward anal retentive behavior in matters of process it seems reasonable to suggest that a wider set of views should have been solicited. I'm in complete agreement with Ned Freed here. > Full disclosure: My personal opinion, which I *did* give to Lynn and > Andrew when I became aware of this glitch, is that a reset is the only > way to be certain that the selection process is unbiased. "Well, I have to say I think you provided some extremely bad advice, and I sincerely hope that there isn't anyone on the first list that has an even slightly acrimonious public relationship with Andrew. We could be in very deep doo if there is." And with Dave Crocker, "Again, the underlying problem with the effort to fix the problem was that that effort was made too fragile by involving too few people, for handling such an exceptional situation." However I'm willing to suggest that the damage has been done and we should respect Andrew Lange's decision. I may disagree with the process by which Andrew made his decision but in the final analysis a decision had to be made and he did it. > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf