Brian E Carpenter wrote: > This isn't a call for bureaucracy, but for precision. As this year's glitch > shows, extreme precision is needed in the rules.
Interesting. What it showed me is that we cannot anticipate every contingency.
Dave, I'm sorry, but it didn't show that at all. The specific problem that arose here WAS anticipated and analyzed and the correct thing to do in this case WAS determined and documented. See RFC 3797 section 5.1 for specifics. Rather, the issue is simply that the nomcom chair elected not to follow the best practice guidelines we had established. As I have stated before, this was a serious blunder, and the solution to this specific problem is to make it impossible for the nomcom chair to make a similar mistake in the future. Beyond that there is room for debate. But thus far nobody has offered up anything remotely credible in support of the continued ability of the nomcom chair to reset the process in the event of a unqualified name being found on the list after it has been published.
Hence what it showed me is that we need better statement of principles and less effort to try to specify every problem and solution that might ever occur.
I have no problem with there being a better statement of principles, and as Phillip was remarked, I agree that we've focused on confidentiality too much and auditability too little. But this doesn't mean we don't need to drive a stake through this specific problem (or rather, through an entire constellation of problems that arise should the process be reset for no good reason). Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf