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

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

All,

My understanding its under review.  Sufficient time for
community discussion and input.

regards,

Victor K

P.S. serving as past chair advisor.

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 7:14 PM Mike StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hmm.  She’s overdue,  but it’s a weekend so....   Mike
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Jul 12, 2020, at 17:23, Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >
>
>