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

Toerless Eckert <> Sat, 11 July 2020 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2CCA3A0EB6 for <>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 08:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.87
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mk9I56I1_eUJ for <>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 08:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1205E3A0EBB for <>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 08:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F57754843F; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 17:47:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 59463440043; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 17:47:47 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 17:47:47 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <>
To: Eliot Lear <>
Cc: Joseph Touch <>, The IETF List <>, "Salz, Rich" <>, Michael StJohns <>
Subject: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
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: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 15:47:55 -0000


I have no problem with this interpretation to be proposed for an update
RFC to the current rules. I do appreciate the logic, also of Eliots
corollary. I do not think it is appropriate to assume consensus on
this interpretation without an actual RFC update to the rules that would
explicitly say so.

Specifically with the RFC as written now, i do not think it was
"inappropriate" for NomCom chair to have decided as she did in the
absence of better RFC text. Hence there is IMHO no ground to
contest the decision. The same IMHO would hold true for future NomComs
in the absence of more explicit RFC text.


On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 01:20:31PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Joe, Toerless, Mike:
> Yoav may be correct about the letter of the rule, but Mike is certainly correct about the spirit.  
> Specifically:
> The RFC does not take into account all possible failure or exception scenarios.  The chair is expected to adhere to the spirit of the process when the letter fails us.  This may be one of those cases.
> The chair should avoid using discretion or influencing in any way the selection of specific individuals.  That is why we produce an ordered list of randomly selected individuals from a pool.
> As a corollary corporate affiliation should only play a role in removals and not on additions.  There should be no room for selective substitution on the part of the chair in this process.
> Eliot
> Full disclosure: I work for a company that would generally be viewed as a competitor to Huawei and affiliates.  That same company could be viewed as a reason we have these sorts of limits on NOMCOM participation, so take this for what it???s worth.