> Ned, > > 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. > I don't know how many ways I can say this, but 5.1 is irrelevant to the > problem I was concerned about, which is having the pool come out at the > same time as the results. That allows for mischief in many ways (not > that I'm accusing anyone of that). Under the circumstances I *still* > believe that the chair did the correct thing, and that his doing so has > ensured the integrity of the process. First of all, as others have suggested, the problem with the proximity of the list and result publication can be addressed trivially by having the secretariat provide the list they received for vetting purposes as well as the result they handed back. Maybe I missed a response from you on this, but AFAIK you have yet to explain why this simple action wouldn't deal with your concerns, both in the present situation and should a similar situation ever arise in the future. (in fact I think you said that this would resolve the issue for you, this time around at least.) In any case, I felt this solution to your issue was so simple and obvious that there was no need to comment on it further. Second, I have yet to hear an explanation from you as to how the community can be confident that the process wasn't gamed in the fashion I have previously described. AFAIK you have failed to rebut this argument, and until you do I have to say I regard something that's I see no way to check as many times more serious than something that can be checked quite easily. In short, I think you concerns are 180% out of sync with reality here. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf