James I also agree with Donald's logic -
So then what happens when the selection process is restarted and the
ramdomizer is used again - say the second time it selects six of the same
candidates and the rest are different out of a pool of 20 or 30 probably.
How is that fair to those selected in the original pick who now loses their
potential seat to the process.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Galvin" <galvin+ietf(_at_)elistx(_dot_)com>
To: "'IETF-Discussion'" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
-- On Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:31 PM -0400 Richard Shockey
<richard(_at_)shockey(_dot_)us> wrote regarding Now there seems to be lack of
communicaiton here... --
First .. the instant there was a problem the IETF community
should have been notified in full on this list.
Perhaps, in this particular case, but in general the NOMCOM
operates under the veil of confidentiality. Historically that veil
has covered most everything about the NOMCOM (in spite of the
"leakage"), and I would not expect that to change any time soon.
Personally I am not particularly fond of this aspect of our NOMCOM.
I think the veil of confidentiality should be much more constrained
but that has not been the community consensus over the years.
Third .. the IETF community AS A WHOLE should have been consulted
as to possible remedies to this "problem" etc. Consultations to
the IESG and IAB are not sufficient on matters of such gravity.
Section 4 Nominating Committee Selection, Item 16 states:
It must be possible to repeat the selection method, either
through iteration or by restarting in such a way as to remain
fair and unbiased. This is necessary to replace selected
volunteers should they become unavailable after selection.
The fact that Andrew chose to restart the process is within the
Also, since there is no enumeration of what "become unavailable"
means, it would have been within the rules to simply iterate the
selection process if an oversight or anomaly or even a challenge
had been determined after the selection.
Consulting with the IAB and IESG is not called out as an option in
the document but neither is consulting with the IETF community.
In fact, (speaking as Editor of the document) the rules lean
towards the Chair simply conducting the selection process to the
best of his or her ability, while keeping the community informed.
No consultation necessary except where explicitly stated. The
primary reason for this is that there is a schedule to keep.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list