1) Murray asked: > Does bullet 3 in Section 2 need to say more than it does now on that topic? No. "Such a challenge must be accompanied by an explanation of why that particular member is not suitable." allows any kind of challenge, including libel. I'm saying that the only allowable challenge here should be on the grounds of insufficient recent IETF experience. 2) Therefore, with respect to what John writes below, +1. Brian On 11/04/2016 04:59, John C Klensin wrote: > Murray, > > One more thought about the challenge process. Without > performing the experiment, we can only guess at how many > challenges there would be and that might make a difference. > However, I wonder whether, instead of adding "didn't attend > enough meetings and isn't appropriate" on to the challenge > criteria for post-selection challenges, it might be better to > create a different category and allow challenges on that basis > to people entering the selection pool. > > In other words, > > (1) The pool is announced (as today) with the "fewer meetings" > people identified (as you now suggest). > > (2) There is a brief period for community challenges to those > who have not attended three of five meetings, paralleling the > period in which the Secretariat checks to be sure those who have > claimed three of five meetings really did attend. > > (3) Once we get past step 2, the pool is the pool and, while any > one selected can be challenged under the rules of RFC 7437, > challenges based on meeting attendance are no longer allowed. > > I'm not sure, and I'm a tad concerned about DoS attacks (see > above), but it seems to me that might be a little bit cleaner. > It would also have the property that potentially-controversial > challenges based on unsuitability would occur much earlier in > the process, before the random draw is made, and that might be > an advantage. > > john > > >