Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Sat, 11 July 2020 03:46 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 95F813A0D63 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 20:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.641
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, 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 MVc8_HMdLsTC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 20:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65E273A0D60 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 20:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E3E548011; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 05:46:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 97B3C440043; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 05:46:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 05:46:40 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
Message-ID: <20200711034640.GH49328@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> <20200711012801.GE16335@kduck.mit.edu> <20200711021620.GF49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20200711030418.GN16335@kduck.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200711030418.GN16335@kduck.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3HaJL1-fZ0ZOi1F52eNsCyLI6jo>
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 03:46:52 -0000
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 08:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > I still don't see that as the only possibly conclusion possible from the > available data. I see a difference between "he concluded that he could not > comply with the rules and still serve" and "he decided that he did not want > to serve". See my reply to Joseph. > > Aka: How is all the justification how he arrived at that decision relevant ? > > > > And even if the reasons where relevant, for which i can not find > > any evidence in the relevant RFCs, then i can't see how this woud > > have changed the outcome. > > > > And even if he would have decided that he did want to serve, it > > would have been up to NomCom chair to decide (my reading of the RFC), > > and but i can't seriously not think of how a NomCom chair would have > > kicked out anyone else (from that company) than the person newly announcing > > the affiliation. > > My understanding is that we do not know that it's about anyone's specific > with (other than to comply with the BCPs, I guess). parsing failed, please rephrase. > It might be, but it > might just be about complying with the BCPs. Specifically, Section 4.17 of > RFC 7437 makes a prohibition regarding "volunteers with the same primary > affiliation may be selected". I read that as saying that the "selection" > occurs when the randomness is finalized and the 3797 algorithm run, and > thus that the relevant affiliation is the primary affiliation at that time. > If the affiliation at that time is disclosed after that time, then we are > into the Section 5.1 of 3797 case that you mention below. Which to me means that the appropriate action for NomCom chair should have been to disqualify Luigi because 5.1 is about not to readjucate other admitted nomcom members (my reading). Also just logical it makes more sense. If i was Tal, it would be quite annoying to be kicked out after the announcement because of somebody elses affiliation change. Whereas if i was in Luigis place i would have been fine to be taken off the list for me given how the employer change would have been my decision. Of course i haven't really thought about what i would think about the improbable stochastically impossible evil conspiracy theory that was invented in this thread, but if IETF starts to make rules assuming large companies are such EvilCorps and ignore probabilities, should IETF then still accept money from the same big corporations ? Cheers Toerless > -Ben > > > > The argument made on the list is to violate section 5.1 of rfc3793 AFAIK. > > > > Cheers > > Toerless -- --- tte@cs.fau.de
- Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random select… NomCom Chair 2020
- Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Resu… Michael StJohns
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Salz, Rich
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Mary B
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Kyle Rose
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … John C Klensin
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Yoav Nir
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Samuel Weiler
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Martin Duke
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Michael StJohns
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Olafur Gudmundsson
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Joseph Touch
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Joseph Touch
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Melinda Shore
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Joseph Touch
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Yoav Nir
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Yoav Nir
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Yoav Nir
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Eliot Lear
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Michael StJohns
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Yoav Nir
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Yoav Nir
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Rob Sayre
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Mike StJohns
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Victor Kuarsingh
- RE: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … STARK, BARBARA H
- RE: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Vittorio Bertola
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Eliot Lear
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Michael StJohns
- RE: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Michael StJohns
- Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Mike StJohns
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… John C Klensin
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Rob Sayre
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… John C Klensin
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… S Moonesamy
- RE: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Mehmet Ersue
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Samuel Weiler
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… S Moonesamy
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Victor Kuarsingh
- RE: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… STARK, BARBARA H
- Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: Chal… Samuel Weiler
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Warren Kumari
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … John C Klensin
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Mary B
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Michael Richardson
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Pete Resnick
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … John C Klensin
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Samuel Weiler
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Pete Resnick
- RE: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Randy Bush
- Re: Additional advisors Brian E Carpenter