That was the British use of the term "unlikely". Stewart Sent from my iPad On 28 Mar 2013, at 14:05, "Dave Crocker" <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 3/28/2013 6:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny, >> because the criteria would surely have included being experienced >> with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison process, including >> knowing and understanding the liaison history. Therefore it >> seems unlikely that there would be any candidate that the IAB >> did not already know about. > > > Stuart, > > It's important that you used the word "unlikely", since it underscores the legitimacy of the problem being raised: The issue is not that there probably would not have been a better choice, but the lack of certitude about it. > > Further, the rationale you offer essentially is one of efficiency, but open processes rarely stand the scrutiny of 'efficiency' concerns. > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net