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

Yoav Nir <> Sat, 11 July 2020 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3997B3A1127 for <>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w6dN0N0viDX2; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CF5E3A07F9; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id dm19so7217205edb.13; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=eInnjFPyCK+5u5e6sRuMOfXDMljQPgxYm4e278wK+3A=; b=n6xsLL/aal2Vab09t0oaKsWb1w2U2zyR6SMJs7UIfIOv4UqZT3+xxsIN8YB/t95rpi YF3cLGf96wzNLf2c9+I0QJqoKKSnhJheDBpBASpw3G6q8nyCCxnq6Ci/deiJmmgxjXQ2 Jwa+tgJmTQxfL/7mSHskGuLmIXTKf71AmqqydQfXrhEgTYueX9N9APPGOpzVSdS5h+2O kxvcli+anRvtYBxGxa7QHkOqrxQ+9HjVrc5e27XWZG137RwK/ZmaRzb+pJPNsW5eDspk gmlSgwODcVaYHgKim1B2DR52uhKyVIw5DWmVrhu8r9HraUX7CgPIxL56A6c12OoG3SrM hdTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=eInnjFPyCK+5u5e6sRuMOfXDMljQPgxYm4e278wK+3A=; b=KkCzY4vYw/EtS9DWaGKsY8iRuylD5A1paBjZFUG9zCFWyeiC/naSPmOQ7hyiZLSCR4 qftpBjSFql5z+SIg/Vo2RwBJdLZX9SSyRN0Pn9UdBd2Vt6K1CQgL1CITOJ6oS7OlctHH if2LFgSLXZ597dlnctYnuE0Rc3pyFtGlEaoHtKYKmAlhoIbk+O46uW1w62Y6NuWTPZRQ abKVFeOLwlCaw2Pe2mA0PAEyjKxnKSTEdG7xR/22z4ZgcI/5snCVfATBg4KbRt3YNyhO CbKykh14e/Jc5TBdnud5oAaImPhJGf3yxzG/dTy92rj0hWQ8JEgrHcBJXl4QytVTFaqo Na9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530JgpGyj942FQMVSAR7Wd+pacVRo2EP0web9B+1gimqIecKvhgs lYBsmdk49B1qBFZBxjEvrC4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzXFmUhRi8jpLYdKoUtUhrs5uz+VYhIvhRMjxdVG02z7Rud5FFhzgQEMyZaT3NbkVcR3Wjw8g==
X-Received: by 2002:a50:f0c6:: with SMTP id a6mr29955238edm.374.1594490373888; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id qn8sm6038693ejb.25.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yoav Nir <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_096880DC-0437-4C67-AF46-065BFA40B006"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 20:59:31 +0300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: The IETF List <>, NomCom Chair 2020 <>
To: Michael StJohns <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
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 17:59:37 -0000

> On 11 Jul 2020, at 20:17, Michael StJohns <> wrote:
> Hi Yoav - 
> Let me try and explain why I think you're making claims that don't meet the reasonableness test by using the example from 5.1 of RFC3797.
> Let's pretend for a moment, that Luigi, upon seeing the presumptive list and his selection suddenly remembers that instead of attending 3 of 5 meetings, he'd registered for one of those meetings, but was unable to attend.  He didn't end up cancelling, so a record keeping error had him as eligible.   He reports his ineligibility, he's skipped over (per second para of 5.1), and the next person on the list is selected.   It doesn't matter that the Nomcom chair had announced that he was selected, once he's ineligible, the list gets corrected based on the input data (of the ordered list, the input seeds, and the fact of Luigi's ineligibility, and the various organizational associations).
> That's not running the clock backwards, that's reinterpreting the result of the selection (and the down-selection of too many from a single company) in the face of updated input data.  
> In this case, the chair ran the process and provided a presumptive list.  Luigi took a look at it, realized he was listed with an incorrect organization and the chair made a discretionary call based on Luigi's request and provided a new presumptive list based on that request rather than providing a new presumptive list based solely on the data at hand.   Again, the presumptive list changed by reinterpreting the selection data.  That's not running the clock backwards (nor was the first example).   And specifically, Luigi was not disqualified from serving, so he doesn't get skipped over in the order.

And these are very different cases. In the first case, Luigi is disqualified. In the second case, neither Luigi nor Tal are disqualified. And addressing your pps, disqualified is very different from "eliminated as exceeding the limit of 2 from an organization”. Someone is either qualified or not qualified, but whether they are eliminated or not is situation dependent. If Luigi has taken himself out of consideration at the same time as revealing his employment by Huawei, then Tal needs not be eliminated.

Your argument hinges on treating the revelation and volunteering to be removed as two separate events. They are not. From the chair’s email:

> Luigi Iannone has informed me his affiliation has recently changed to "Huawei". That would make 3 Huawei people, which means one must be disqualified. 
> Luigi requested that, since he was the person who didn't mention this prior to selection, he should be the one removed. I have no problem with this, so I will honor this request rather than removing Tal Mizrahi (as the last of the Huawei people selected). 

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.