Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair

["Dan Harkins" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, December 24, 2013 11:16 am, Tom Ritter wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2013 1:45 PM, "Brian Weis" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 24, 2013, at 4:02 AM, Trevor Perrin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Has there ever been an open process for CFRG chairs?  I think you and
>> > Ran Canetti were appointed at the beginning of CFRG, and then you
>> > appointed Kevin as Ran's replacement with no call for other
>> > candidates.  Is that right?
>>
>> I'm appalled that now this discussion has apparently been reduced to
>> a thinly veiled hint at conspiracy and/or collusion. Sheesh. Get to
>> know IRTF process, please.
>
> I did not interpret it as a reference to conspiracy, rather a note of the
> lack of opportunity to raise objections, ask for volunteers, or
> nominations. I'm not familiar with the actual appointment in question,
> it's
> likely Kevin was an active participant that, aside from his employer, made
> sense. But, if there was no opportunity to raise concern/conflict of
> interest, this lack of opportunity to provide input is worth noting. Not
> that it means conspiracy, just that it makes this conversation all the
> more
> relevant (as there is no 'you could have replied to this thread'
> argument).

  The lack of opportunity to raise objections is due to the fact that he
(and the others who recently subscribed to CFRG because they follow him
on twitter and heeded his call to join the crusade) were not involved at
the time. These complaints ring particularly hollow.

  Realize too that had Kevin's employer not given these people the
opportunity to strike their fashionable pose there would be no discussion
of IRTF process or what the CFRG's place in the world is. So this really
isn't about IRTF process or the CFRG. It all comes back to the conspiracy
theory, and the guilt-by-association, and the fallacious ad hominem
attacks.

  Dan.