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

Mike StJohns <> Sun, 12 July 2020 23:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A34A3A098B for <>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 16:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=cGa+MiJT; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=D8xKtkcJ
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94cTHaul_xoe for <>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 16:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CD2E3A0985 for <>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 16:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id ukYZjumElfOFCulAAjNkHi; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 23:13:38 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20190202a; t=1594595618; bh=ChEgB7AMR00gKjqWYiIrudcsrtIhuMb5FQgXpfrcamA=; h=Received:Received:Received:Content-Type:From:Mime-Version:Subject: Date:Message-Id:To; b=cGa+MiJT+w+jLBf8Fa2O1y5mqQO6r6I0+suqUZBmbYcReMinQm54wHZqJ5/Kad39F /T4OEEVRW1VHvyUqVyMBAs2Tb0h3hFDPkdZ0uiAcsDG7HlBaShE4yiCDM3Ub1lP2Ud 2OkcY+BoygFSEg/5wIyDeLlAvqtnH0/+h6UrlnBw2txKNK2kHtN5da/y9pP0uv7wdt BzbaEBWz3K0omhLiJ6or+RPg+tcwFykKw5PrfeByn2HZX2Tv9NOEGKbnCRZ5QFRiuX 6w1jB7vZg1lpoMj0ZMGDScoxsmCUaTV1CmQeRUL6AuYktaIJpA4lhrPl7FnUdAaAZS B+X7Gd7kl6QTg==
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id ul69jzOVk8C1KulAAjsGXx; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 23:13:38 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20190202a; t=1594595618; bh=ChEgB7AMR00gKjqWYiIrudcsrtIhuMb5FQgXpfrcamA=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:From:Mime-Version:Subject:Date: Message-Id:To; b=D8xKtkcJDOHMrvmh590d/e33htfX3kt0R7HeYfqLt3zBoy+iqCEFcyJ19Zg6mF70y tffsokcMNP6GlwiubdABE3MDeGW5aETnCCNfZ+xzub+7rDu3NW9+NLzGbUIXQieneB A4I79WUOiQaF3fNE0jS7xr9KtDViSPK1kEait39Kb1ApAZk9D44F1bUbfZAuMRsFo2 JqwUoFChuDchDEu6FIQJKLm4T0sKloNRqut7bq5EHKzUL2u2ndQYpGtzQ4drrxd9WD qXrWo4pBwXqwPKkhuwNhFDTt+XfF7TfSGibfjsI3CXqilwpYvO6V+ZQBFQPM3o4jlK dTIHgmsf3Gucw==
Received: from [IPv6:800::1] ([IPv6:2607:fb90:6494:4127:95:b939:198e:fea6]) by with ESMTPA id ul9kjSmLlRpp9ul9vjK5TX; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 23:13:35 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Mike StJohns <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 19:13:10 -0400
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <>, Rob Sayre <>, The IETF List <>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17F75)
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: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 23:13:41 -0000

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 <> 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 <> 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