James Galvin wrote:
But there is a part of the process that is not public: the actual selection of eligible volunteers.
1) The criteria are public. 2) The result is public, with the intention of time for review. I'm not sure how the internals of going from 1 to 2 could be made public and still function. Since the criteria are reasonably objective, I'm having trouble seeing how "transparency" on the "decision" process is meaningful.
So, as editor of the document, I just want to point out that I believe that what transpired was allowed under the rules. If we, as a community, don't like what transpired, then we need to change the rules.
At base, I suspect this demonstrates the problem with our being too rule-oriented, and not enough community oriented. It loses sight of the underpinnings of comfort and legitimacy, and that is community review and approval when a situation does -- or reasonably might -- entail the unknown or, at least, controversy.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf