IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Sun, 12 July 2020 08:28 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@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 9B77A3A0F90 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 01:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 S-JUoT6y-onw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 01:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12b.google.com (mail-il1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (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 6E5973A0F64 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 01:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id s21so8680549ilk.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 01:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QvvyXyprpR3XFXpg1WjtLZuT+pBjiXOmQFgA6Yb15h8=; b=dX7GffeG9tNIbg50wuX1FoSJYs78nOq49lQ5lY+/lB8WNF0ge7CzyBbJfhjKwij3Aq N7ARvJDzAieNxThX3jiTIllrLJzVZrlXvjvpay5Z45/C3tZqES4QRyIdeopYTaPdTVgp paDdsDlH8nImdZbpoyNYvtfDqJDiQ6B9suab54HeqePT78cyCMFEjnEHeK6c+ZuF8IYY TU2+JCdqiOHina1lgp/q8GJQufoxVGSbRTL2SiF0ASYB3wOr9xNtdYomLkqwDAfBT7M1 MyQUS8/41Hfjt932chjvys86ZbTyHeE2fvdccW0aqUzoApcyEv6hYNO6B2TjTxawS3rf l60Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QvvyXyprpR3XFXpg1WjtLZuT+pBjiXOmQFgA6Yb15h8=; b=XOKmdDFI4uvOk4+LWC7jE4uRGsk8mkMqyXItCQrgA/EzhSnb88raEqHxpAPb1UBU5U ImydjdaVmtX5mcJJL6ZSGiPnfwtwNPgxoWVId3pAGMkNaJVhOfgsqvqjp+C5NAC3rY5y oMikOG652MpVFQontH4gFLlZE8BhefRt/7WIzK6q+Z70Zq8op/D3zKbJLIw1W6euIO+G a2pZNJTyCSlZpksq3VqDPU3gToO83Aw8U4tei4yguZg0MS9JzRccsNgSZY07OzRI+gh3 fAEYt8EmC2nsEl+K4zNxLKTjD68dKows03ipRb2dKtmbQmaEi70qhLRpXPwkrxwAmVXP BiQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ycZumL1BTSMFIhXAQRO/hfPASXJN9baEBHvedAykGy0Ct+zDd 9OH0fVkiT1lx5yfCF4dI3WJOJRDAiYwnKrHUOD4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxjACunoUytIc1n27z5EKZlc5abCBA6KujWoxJC2bEe7HBAImA0VcbBur95VwgEJU20TSTsz9GI62q4k5tasc8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:8b4:: with SMTP id a20mr59147706ilt.254.1594542507453; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 01:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <80BE06AD-146F-4DE1-A160-2A7B1E7CB59D@gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 01:28:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SwaMYcV6ysWMHMOcaGbn3TPbSAe6e_sZ0B3ABup+incug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, The IETF List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bc72ba05aa3a5b80"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uzvu9121tFyUMCkZ2iJgYI7Pjcg>
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 08:28:30 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email