Yup. More specifically, "A" has to happen before close of trading on
the day you're getting your random numbers from.
Unless I'm mistaken, I'm reading an overwhelming consensus NOT to
reset from those posting on this list. Given that close of trading
for Andrew's reset is today we're about to get ourselves in very big trouble.
Andrew - I'd like to ask that you reverse yourself, or at least delay
your second selection until at least next week. I know you need to
get the Nomcom up and running, but you need to consider the community
feeling on this without being trapped into a misstep by a too-early deadline.
At 03:01 PM 8/31/2006, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
If the main problem is that the Secretariat can't do its vetting job in
time, for whatever reason, to allow the volunteer list to be publicly
posted for a reasonable before selection takes place, there seem to be
approximately three things you could do:
A. Leave as much as you can of the selection algorithm in place
but change the date of selection to later to give the Secretariat more
time and/or give time for public posting before selection.
B. Run the selection as scheduled and put out the volunteer list
and selection at the same time.
C. Do B but then run yet another selection.
Seems to me clear that A is superior and C is inferior and if I revise
RFC 3797 I'll put in something about this case.
Donald
-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:24 PM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Cc: IETF-Discussion
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
Don,
I'll reiterate what I said earlier, since it seems to be missed by many
people. The presence of an IAB member on the list, while an issue, is
not my overwhelming concern. My overwhelming concern is the fact that
the volunteer list came out at the same time as the results. That could
allow for funny business, by the NOMCOM chair choosing the algorithm by
which people are ordered. I am by no means claiming that was done here,
and I fully accept Andrew Lange's explanation, but I believe
transparency demands redress in this circumstance, and the the best
redress I could envision is rerunning the algorithm.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf