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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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
>