IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Sat, 11 July 2020 06:05 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37C13A08F3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 23:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.87
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HOeV2hGHRzf7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 23:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E21693A08F4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 23:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D300548011; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 08:05:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 757F9440043; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 08:05:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 08:05:40 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
Message-ID: <20200711060540.GJ49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <159422819660.27889.6475902734358747001@ietfa.amsl.com> <b4f5a3cf-5fab-8188-926a-a4100f776610@comcast.net> <1112046E-04ED-4DB1-8766-4928AC5D15F5@akamai.com> <20200711002800.GC49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <17D66D97-9F29-470C-83CA-53C48F49D323@strayalpha.com> <20200711011915.GE49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <30972D6C-F7EC-4228-A736-2489CE04530B@strayalpha.com> <20200711032832.GG49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <D0376262-DCC7-498F-81C0-162A212E71DC@strayalpha.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D0376262-DCC7-498F-81C0-162A212E71DC@strayalpha.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/04parvG9pxL5y7qcSd1RFL9lNq0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 06:05:48 -0000

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Joseph Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jul 10, 2020, at 8:28 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > 
> > Given how Luigi could have simply said "i withdraw from serving", an
> > interpretation like the one Michael and you are alluding to would just
> > create an incentive in similar future case for volunteers to not be fully
> > forthcoming as to their motivation to withdraw so as not to punish
> > colleagues in a new employer they just joined.
> 
> That incentive has its own response, once detected. 

I can not parse that.

> > Thats quite silly. 
> 
> Conflict of interest is not about ONE possible scenario that YOU (or anyone else) find valid. It???s about whether ANY of US consider ANY possible scenario unacceptable.
> 
> What you call ???silly??? some of us call ???ethics???.

Sure, goes the other way around as well. I do not only think NomCom chair
was completely in her right to decide as she did i also think that both she and
Luigi acted ethical. I find the request to remove both Luigi and Tal
unethical and the proposal to consider this to be the desirable
reading of the rules silly because it seems to be purely based on
the presumption of having to protect nomcom against a very improbable
evil scenario.

Cheers
    Toerless

> Joe
> 
> 

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email