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

Yoav Nir <> Sat, 11 July 2020 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD1F3A1127 for <>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:48:20 -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 lk8JaAj3wwxT for <>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A35F93A1125 for <>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b15so7205357edy.7 for <>; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:48:18 -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=7QUiBdwxCTC2abfUKfa/sc76VmsB/bSvEKzPsd7ywAA=; b=Zp5RLQe6Etfmh/moy1LR4RGoVjQo/BbNw8ro3x9eS0VUOScSCC/hwCHIzLpzVeFDZC AVTyZuzmJAn4rlAecmhQdKp70txilhNOYDCUX6cLB3pTLUErCzjfii6vfjVreOGvZO9u scC9o6SEI6F0hrYxc/65hea0aaDxOx+s7vgnjJKlK9UhgR4L3z2jqdG7TsGM8VQeNJVU +0UCYfvAxWDP8JrQlYP7zhAR1nRIOr3Ucd0JfpP1RC2f34yYtNluhMjRDkhf0QSph9Sj M2GEIR6kMbTVPZhuwMwfGTqrzW1Smr6jVfaYnD5jXY2x+9ZBiBTWXndi/1qLLysxyWjs MX8w==
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=7QUiBdwxCTC2abfUKfa/sc76VmsB/bSvEKzPsd7ywAA=; b=hKHnExMEctLkZDWhH5hkfscTLVPZA2++wtFUX3pbaeAItFZ0O+1ufEfqn0qytbqdn2 BDm8VV3NRcoElD/yNDakAG0vOUDh8fk6EvMR/fjdy47bCve1fCNePXjKOLI3DeT4POu3 AHC0MOBOJykCNq2+rG5aAWmiWl8IWDtxBdmgzIw1e7eqRCPjkyhuLzwO0UyoL4W06yJv kfZhsfUgw0jI/F7hLnkzOLVeWI57viGK+lhvgO03OfvlYchNzg02EXVQ1TG99JbWvzS9 5SgBUGDCIU6tBOQnDvgj2ndJKkawC2E6VOfN4WmcrORISgxhryrJO+LFhbFyQLyUxCRD tV4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533FMShzy5QhUl2o3wI5xGIkmuVcXvEN7m6PULGA1DI59DCvNT1/ 82FhKmZb3IdGCWP18BAo4yO8WUbB
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx4lbWIgqmZbi2XxGDKeRmNTSgjjqq7nqsXeqsXrBXw9Meh+krr+260gWR0aXULubfUPrBkmA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:31ad:: with SMTP id dj13mr40481341edb.88.1594489697120; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id m6sm5855179ejq.85.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yoav Nir <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_590C9D8B-CBA0-4A27-A869-C7D575ACA4BF"
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 20:48:11 +0300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Joseph Touch <>, The IETF List <>, "Salz, Rich" <>, Michael StJohns <>
To: Eliot Lear <>
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 17:48:21 -0000

Hi, Eliot.

I disagree that this is the spirit of the rule.

The spirit is to get as close as possible to having the NomCom be the first 10 candidates on the list without breaking constraints. 

The first 10 include 3 Cisco people, so the last of them had to be removed, and the 11th one added. Note that Reshad is not disqualified. He was just skipped over to meet our affiliation diversity requirements.

As it turned out after the fact, the first 11 also included 3 Huawei people, so we need the 12th candidate.  Note that neither Luigi nor Tal are disqualified. They both meet the criteria for NomCom eligibility.

Mike’s interpretation would have us get the 13th candidate into NomCom. This goes against the spirit of the rule, because we can meet the constraints with only the first 12. It hinges on treating Luigi’s revelation that he works for Huawei and Luigi’s volunteering to be the one kicked off the list as two separate events. They are not. The chair’s message makes it clear that they were one event.

Assuming Mike’s interpretation, which I still think is incorrect, is accepted, then Luigi should be allowed to withdraw his resignation. It was only done because, to quote the chair’s email, "since he was the person who didn't mention this prior to selection, he should be the one removed”


> On 11 Jul 2020, at 14:20, 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.