I agree as well. Again, having started this charming little discussion thread, any other course of action at this late stage would cause more problems than it would solve. R. Shockey > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:40 PM > To: IETF-Discussion > Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here... > > I agree that this seems to be the best course available. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > At 09:08 PM 8/31/2006, Theodore Tso wrote: > >On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:55:25PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > > > Therefore, I propose the following: > > > > > > (1) Andrew's decision stands. Under RFC 3777, the only recourse > available to anyone who disagrees with that decision would be to ask Andrew to reconsider or to file a dispute with the ISOC President. The former has already been done, and so far no reversal has been announced. Given that it is now after the close of trading on August 31, I > would submit that a reversal of this decision by either Andrew or Lynn > would do more harm than good. > > > > > > (2) Text is added to the next version of the selection process to > addresss this issue. I would suggest a strengthening of the existing > language about leaving questionable candidates in the list and rejecting > them in a later pass. In fact, it might be wiser to require the use of > the original list of volunteers as given to the secretariat and > always rejecting ineligible candidates in a later pass. This would remove any need to insure that errors or disputes about eligibility be resolved before the random data becomes available. > > > >I think Jeff proposal makes a lot of sense and is probably the best > >way to move forward given the current circumstances. > > > > - Ted > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf