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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 12 July 2020 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 370D23A07C4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 14:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 BauRtTmLwBp3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x636.google.com (mail-pl1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960CE3A00D6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x636.google.com with SMTP id k5so4558006plk.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8h4poBhQdE1Q6tmlDte47+fvFbRdb3gYpQFJ+6r2Zko=; b=EjmxGo0uUr98HLwLP/SiO3PrY2hkoX+h12v02wienob0GGdSU5OCCTnKG7xwtv7jYT YZyo/VosUEQSrrMpWkFJ3Dgvud47gFMQRsOo7VdvUyiT6w1RyBVdR+rQP71NC+XCLi5n hXmF7OS5myFkn33vT5t09dO75E2n7R29a7tnMKi3llU5RipYMcTc1txekuyOmQQo0SaY umXdZMwtXN4qBJeTGGnH708qq2okTrpKDISAP4+GaNTd0ofhfhskSD4Ezz7KgrGkge6Z MJ7J41y6Y21Md8Y/6lD3C+2f++vlpxoIYv5Z/9S2uJ5Rd/XGU62KMW9Zyq/mH8svj7lq L2TQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8h4poBhQdE1Q6tmlDte47+fvFbRdb3gYpQFJ+6r2Zko=; b=J6z7QhedoMk4CP57Jz0+IhEnpHEfP7kt/Sz4LJh+ZJshP0DfGxdiQ0zHTmYmP8eVgX v2zLrMn3ddZcXJDS5Ov9ZticHlbJQzRITJqf2fiHMRofCNyrFHn3SSuKDLc4D4blCdYM ixbICUt/W1lQL4/iyoYw2VLn7Qus4Ot3Og9hkWJEMLZnFo/3pnccyWBKviu3nAVMigE1 pQU/anW4HSNLCAl1A+VCvpewaltOUmgpc2Eoh0Piq1DO6UtogIxwAspPRyud8mtdjDgN 9XgNhkChKQR3AWzLhTMDtKlWykxnVxCJGGTzo8cmImr9nt79ibWyBMipVBBl97SrHj4J /m8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533CLe3DYipB42KdWUad662uvjDdwA8TNAVYkdbCdVNoU3MJ67gF DxV3rs7vriqNHHE4kZatgC9W1zez
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZtLDIOqbLZ3hfZcr9iWv8PdAlgXIQ7xxo/A/EJeKZrr+54aEAJIIcZ+u9vI7VlPXo/JsrKw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:9b82:: with SMTP id g2mr15732838pjp.187.1594588953653; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 14:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.132.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 66sm5204125pfa.92.2020.07.12.14.22.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 12 Jul 2020 14:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: The IETF List <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <159422819660.27889.6475902734358747001@ietfa.amsl.com> <b4f5a3cf-5fab-8188-926a-a4100f776610@comcast.net> <892C3021-1B44-463C-B2C4-5070396EFD50@gmail.com> <c3de3ced-2995-dba2-6bf6-89d0659138be@comcast.net> <EA1BCB3A-5473-4C14-92FF-B38713132D2C@gmail.com> <800a4f9b-504c-7725-11d8-a855d074e91e@comcast.net> <80BE06AD-146F-4DE1-A160-2A7B1E7CB59D@gmail.com> <CAChr6SwaMYcV6ysWMHMOcaGbn3TPbSAe6e_sZ0B3ABup+incug@mail.gmail.com> <20200712141900.GN49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5e24af05-23e6-ef8a-a8e9-44da95d86037@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:22:29 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200712141900.GN49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/r2abeK-0o-E_c4Ho5l0u555ZIVQ>
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: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 21:22:36 -0000

I suggest that at this point, we should wait and see the NomCom chair's
response to the challenge. After that, there is a defined dispute
resolution procedure if people don't agree with her resolution.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 13-Jul-20 02:19, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> It seems to me as if better RFC text, it could IMHO pick either of the
> following two options to amend the text we have now:
> 
> A) removal of Tal - because of re-evaluation of hash-list.
> B) removal of Luigi - because of new disclosure about his affiliation.
> 
> To me, B) looks more logical because it maintains a bit more of the
> "individual contributor" pretense the IETF claims to have (and directly violates
> with the max2 rule). Aka: It only eliminates a person for which there is a
> new disclosure, not a different person.
> 
> Any disucssion between Luigi and NomCom chair to me just looks like an
> attempt to decide which one of these two cases would be best match the
> intent of the process given how the RFCs are not prescriptive enough.
> 
> Both options i think match Eliots corollary of removal based on association.
> 
> The more important corollary from Eliot not well written down either is the
> non-addition based on association, e.g.: If Luigi would have been Huawei initially
> and would have left Huawei instead, then that would not raise Tal from the max2
> eliminations of the initial run.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> P.S.: If there was a new RFC done, you should ask for the rights to use the
> names Luigi and Tal, otherwise use Alice and Bob ;-))
> 
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 01:28:16AM -0700, Rob Sayre wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 11:00 AM Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I don't agree with your reading of the RFC. But, even if I did, it seems
>> unwise to do this kind of negotiation. Your reading grants the chair a lot
>> of discretion, but does not make a case for this particular decision.
>> For example, one relevant piece of information might be who the next few
>> candidates would have been.
>>
>> It would be a shame to call any of these into question:
>>
>> - selection of NomCom members
>> - the actions of their nominees
>> - the IETF itself
>>
>> If those seem questionable, there is no benefit to publishing an RFC over
>> an Internet Draft.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Rob
>