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

Yoav Nir <> Sat, 11 July 2020 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686443A0C11 for <>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 03:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 bDnbL8zOYVg2 for <>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 03:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::635]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C19CE3A0C10 for <>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 03:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id dr13so8656684ejc.3 for <>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 03:02:25 -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=AmCApYhm6WleqApyAvhpgIuphmTtIE+kgXMFa/nzMUc=; b=HMYHcMNBMuhYA0tC+v0Xhm7popwLzqI5xozF4mY3+9Ff8sFm9rItqySBpLptokqfrY XdQDBFRFRXH4GTEIgZ2q5rDk8h0WAft/ULg2Fw61ElzZ0iNjFYSrz3yMHfOuO1XY2W7F Dd0O3JmMUgj4Vis80th4OXP2+o3a+ktNd9iHTtMnz5bfXn6iI92tGp4CesP/VWTj1n39 TeI/4L2VOdqXZd8/6/sBGoPd/b3QfkhpU5IDk39mtCW1dIOKDoRrbx+DLnFMZPc981US glttk01VL7FHHsYgWYi4zrWxe9eNm8F3TQNSUUmCuDoZeyIyznJWkEnBFZ8xFQl/AZSW 7KaA==
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=AmCApYhm6WleqApyAvhpgIuphmTtIE+kgXMFa/nzMUc=; b=kL02s32tynp/HdlTmx+FrqJkZYPaS1/AQhk7WhcqKwaiiGpVjy+6jSZvQ6VYgCMUAa XZWQwf3etv+P+B3qUH745WFV//VSb9WNn1Gc6t7+ws0w+BY9PMMTuWf4oIOE9ob8JPEZ oCiDMWwmpmqa3iP4wgAvPMq43kyhn+x7OuE3MRs0XTZihhZVYk3lHtOh+3s3NkNlT+Az sZOUbdK09YgIap6Fo6iUavdXmZF5cBa0WaLSEOIU3cpeN1FqJXB1hvS/YS/n3GhcNad0 f7cbRRgUu8CjP1F0U5JfQtqkA5irEEbxCJWq4Cru7qBYnOKLG8eyuZGAXH2n6nTmJqr/ XDuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530okgnK+Ke6DfYWkfxosCF4zVt17QpRuALo76r5hMJtMPH7hFeU jHdNNWRR1g0+asBjewO/eHg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwhtO/tgTP1w89DYKH97mZp2+wxFoDfr2P6vKn0jULDTrk2NiuSi/oH8qAd4Z18wt+jBaHroA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:ce3c:: with SMTP id sd28mr61113835ejb.382.1594461744225; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 03:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id u19sm6674532edd.62.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 11 Jul 2020 03:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yoav Nir <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_94CE984D-7829-4138-A333-07D34A56A0BC"
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 13:02:16 +0300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <>, "" <>
To: Toerless Eckert <>
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 10:02:27 -0000

> On 11 Jul 2020, at 6:46, Toerless Eckert <> wrote:
>> 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.

Knowing Tal, I’d guess he is amused by all the lawyering going on here. But we usually treat NomCom membership as a burden to be shouldered, not as a prize to be won. So fairness to the candidate doesn’t come into play.
> 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 ?

The rules are against accidental stacking of the NomCom. There are plenty of ways for EvilCorp to game the system by having its IETF people work as independent consultants paid by EvilCorp’s customers rather than directly by EvilCorp.