Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

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

 



James  I also agree with Donald's logic - 

So then what happens when the selection process is restarted and the
ramdomizer is used again - say the second time it selects six of the same
candidates and the rest are different out of a pool of 20 or 30 probably.
How is that fair to those selected in the original pick who now loses their
potential seat to the process.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Galvin" <galvin+ietf@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'IETF-Discussion'" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...


>
> -- On Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:31 PM -0400 Richard Shockey
> <richard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote regarding Now there seems to be lack of
> communicaiton here... --
>
> > First .. the instant there was a problem the IETF community
> > should have been notified in full on this list.
>
> Perhaps, in this particular case, but in general the NOMCOM
> operates under the veil of confidentiality.  Historically that veil
> has covered most everything about the NOMCOM (in spite of the
> "leakage"), and I would not expect that to change any time soon.
>
> Personally I am not particularly fond of this aspect of our NOMCOM.
> I think the veil of confidentiality should be much more constrained
> but that has not been the community consensus over the years.
>
> > Third .. the IETF community AS A WHOLE should have been consulted
> > as to possible remedies to this "problem" etc. Consultations to
> > the IESG and IAB are not sufficient on matters of such gravity.
>
> Section 4 Nominating Committee Selection, Item 16 states:
>
>        It must be possible to repeat the selection method, either
>        through iteration or by restarting in such a way as to remain
>        fair and unbiased.  This is necessary to replace selected
>        volunteers should they become unavailable after selection.
>
> The fact that Andrew chose to restart the process is within the
> rules.
>
> Also, since there is no enumeration of what "become unavailable"
> means, it would have been within the rules to simply iterate the
> selection process if an oversight or anomaly or even a challenge
> had been determined after the selection.
>
> Consulting with the IAB and IESG is not called out as an option in
> the document but neither is consulting with the IETF community.
>
> In fact, (speaking as Editor of the document) the rules lean
> towards the Chair simply conducting the selection process to the
> best of his or her ability, while keeping the community informed.
> No consultation necessary except where explicitly stated.  The
> primary reason for this is that there is a schedule to keep.
>
> Jim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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