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