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

"STARK, BARBARA H" <> Mon, 13 July 2020 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3093A0C31 for <>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 19:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.018
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mHVKXZCr0ZD0 for <>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 19:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46D5C3A0A68 for <>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 19:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id 06D2gJet040968; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:46:58 -0400
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 32790sej08-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:46:57 -0400
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 06D2kupQ013814; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:46:56 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 06D2knBa013448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:46:49 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (Service) with ESMTP id F107E4009E64; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 02:46:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Service) with ESMTPS id D7E4E4009E63; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 02:46:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2044.4; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:46:48 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:46:41 -0400
To: "'Victor Kuarsingh'" <>, "'Mike StJohns'" <>
CC: "'The IETF List'" <>
Subject: RE: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
Thread-Topic: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 02:46:41 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2eeff6b3afdd4313a6a6787f92d71ab6attcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-12_14:2020-07-10, 2020-07-12 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007130018
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 02:47:01 -0000

Apologies for not replying sooner. But, my house was being packed on Wednesday, loaded on the truck on Thursday, we cleaned out the old house on Friday, drove 800 miles on Saturday (and I ended up having to drive one of the cars the whole way), and started putting the new house together on Sunday. I was totally off-line and blithely unaware of this storm.

I’ll be chatting with Victor and Suresh tomorrow. I’m also going to reach out to Luigi and Tal, to make sure they’re aware (in case they aren’t on this list). I’ll send an email Monday before 23:59 UTC.

Thanks for all your thoughtful discussion. Much appreciated.

From: ietf <> On Behalf Of Victor Kuarsingh
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 8:54 PM
To: Mike StJohns <>
Cc: The IETF List <>
Subject: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process


My understanding its under review.  Sufficient time for community discussion and input.


Victor K

P.S. serving as past chair advisor.

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 7:14 PM Mike StJohns <<>> wrote:
Hmm.  She’s overdue,  but it’s a weekend so....   Mike

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 12, 2020, at 17:23, Brian E Carpenter <<>> wrote:
> I suggest that at this point, we should wait and see the NomCom chair's
> response to the challenge. After that, there is a defined dispute
> resolution procedure if people don't agree with her resolution.
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
>> On 13-Jul-20 02:19, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> It seems to me as if better RFC text, it could IMHO pick either of the
>> following two options to amend the text we have now:
>> A) removal of Tal - because of re-evaluation of hash-list.
>> B) removal of Luigi - because of new disclosure about his affiliation.
>> To me, B) looks more logical because it maintains a bit more of the
>> "individual contributor" pretense the IETF claims to have (and directly violates
>> with the max2 rule). Aka: It only eliminates a person for which there is a
>> new disclosure, not a different person.
>> Any disucssion between Luigi and NomCom chair to me just looks like an
>> attempt to decide which one of these two cases would be best match the
>> intent of the process given how the RFCs are not prescriptive enough.
>> Both options i think match Eliots corollary of removal based on association.
>> The more important corollary from Eliot not well written down either is the
>> non-addition based on association, e.g.: If Luigi would have been Huawei initially
>> and would have left Huawei instead, then that would not raise Tal from the max2
>> eliminations of the initial run.
>> Cheers
>>    Toerless
>> P.S.: If there was a new RFC done, you should ask for the rights to use the
>> names Luigi and Tal, otherwise use Alice and Bob ;-))
>>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 01:28:16AM -0700, Rob Sayre wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 11:00 AM Yoav Nir <<>> wrote:
>>>> Clearly, Luigi requested to be removed because both he and the NomCom
>>>> chair agreed with an interpretation like mine. If the powers that be (which
>>>> AFAIK is the NomCom chair) decide that this is a wrong interpretation, he
>>>> should at least be allowed to withdraw his resignation which was made in
>>>> error.
>>> I don't agree with your reading of the RFC. But, even if I did, it seems
>>> unwise to do this kind of negotiation. Your reading grants the chair a lot
>>> of discretion, but does not make a case for this particular decision.
>>> For example, one relevant piece of information might be who the next few
>>> candidates would have been.
>>> It would be a shame to call any of these into question:
>>> - selection of NomCom members
>>> - the actions of their nominees
>>> - the IETF itself
>>> If those seem questionable, there is no benefit to publishing an RFC over
>>> an Internet Draft.
>>> thanks,
>>> Rob