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

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

 




On 2 sep 2006, at 14.49, John C Klensin wrote:

I assume that everything have been done
with good faith here but, to paraphrase an off-list discussion,
at least some of the community will always have a nagging fear
that the reset was motivated by some members of the community
believing that a second draw would yield a more favorable Nomcom.

I think i agree that it is safe to say that is due to human error, though the consultation with someone who is on the list of those to be considered for renewal does compound the error and put it all at further risk. but i still think it is an error and not an intentional act to subvert the process.


On 2 sep 2006, at 17.42, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 06:59:36AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The bug here is that the process is insufficiently robust under
operator error.

That is broke.



I think we are in violent agreement that it should be fixed before the
next Nomcom.  There may be a difference of opinion of how exactly to
fix the problem, but I don't think anyone has suggested that we should
leave things the way that they are, at least for the next Nomcom.


i don't think the process is broken, but the implementation was. and i don't believe this is sufficient reason to reopen the nomcom process.

i think the process is clear about what should happen once someone is committed to the 3797 process. what is broken is that the process was, perhaps, not well enough understood and, as is so often the case in the IETF and elsewhere, was followed loosely as opposed to strictly. i do wonder if the previous nomcom chair was consulted in making the decision to redraw - in fact perhaps previous chairs could be a useful resource for the new chair faced with such a dilemma as opposed to representatives of the bodies to be staffed.

however, in the sprit of accepting broken implementations (i.e. conservative in what you send, liberal in what you receive) i suggest we wish Andrew luck and let him get on with it.

a.


_______________________________________________

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]