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

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Sat, 11 July 2020 02:16 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 5CAC43A0C9A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.87
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 e-GVj0A90sX5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECDD33A0C99 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F74548047; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 04:16:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id A1DFA440043; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 04:16:20 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 04:16:20 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
Message-ID: <20200711021620.GF49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <159422819660.27889.6475902734358747001@ietfa.amsl.com> <b4f5a3cf-5fab-8188-926a-a4100f776610@comcast.net> <1112046E-04ED-4DB1-8766-4928AC5D15F5@akamai.com> <20200711002800.GC49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <17D66D97-9F29-470C-83CA-53C48F49D323@strayalpha.com> <20200711011915.GE49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20200711012801.GE16335@kduck.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200711012801.GE16335@kduck.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uZimsbzo6Ne0f09Y8X_Kcf7Qc8Q>
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: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 02:16:28 -0000

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:28:01PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > On which planet did this happen ?
> > How do you come to interpret what happened in that way ?
> > Luigi declined to serve. Thats all.
> 
> I'm not sure that we actually have enough information to say that.
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/o8p6rh9boOs65QTTIpBb73t-fV4/
> says "has informed [the Nomcom chair] his affiliation has recently
> changed".  That's not exactly "has said he cannot serve", and doesn't say
> anything about when the affiliation changed with respect to the timeline of
> the Nomcom selection process.  Is there other information available that
> I'm missing (n.b. I'm quite behind on IETF mail at the moment)?

Sure, but yada yada yada -> he decided that he did not want to serve.

Aka: How is all the justification how he arrived at that decision relevant ?

And even if the reasons where relevant, for which i can not find
any evidence in the relevant RFCs, then i can't see how this woud
have changed the outcome.

And even if he would have decided that he did want to serve, it
would have been up to NomCom chair to decide (my reading of the RFC),
and but i can't seriously not think of how a NomCom chair would have
kicked out anyone else (from that company) than the person newly announcing
the affiliation.

The argument made on the list is to violate section 5.1 of rfc3793 AFAIK.

Cheers
   Toerless