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

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

 





As someone who was actually selected in the previous round and started this
little thread, I support this position.


> I've reviewed the specification for this process, including the random
> selection algorithm, several times over the past few years.  I've always
> believed the selection process was reasonably well-designed to meet its
> goals, and I certainly didn't predict the present situation.  However, now
> that it's been raised, it seems reasonable to fix it _for the future_.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 


_______________________________________________

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]