RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
I agree with Phillip - there is no harm here. If someone ineligible
had happened to be selected, they would have been immediately
disqualified and the next number on the list selected. That's why
you actually ask for about 16 numbers to be output when you run the
program which outputs the selection numbers. There is no reason for
a reset. (However, see my comments on volunteer associations).
I further agree with Phillip (and Richard) that this is not an IAB or
even a Nomcom chair decision, but a community one and should not have
been made in the back room.
At 10:52 PM 8/30/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The reset should not be permitted.
The problem here is that the IAB and IESG could use this precedent
to avoid appointment of certain individuals to the NOMCOM.
The situation might appear to be that a member of the crazy gang got
choosen and someone wants to block them.
Given the tenuous nature of the NOMCON procedure itself and the
abysmal level of accounability it achieves it is not acceptable to
further dilute it.
My personal view is that the NOMCON process itself is a charade that
was intended to concentrate power in the hands of the establishment.
The only reason why it can be claimed to work is that the process
cannot be controlled by the administrators. Once someone can ask for
a 'redo' that rationale is lost entirely.
The original list should be used. If any member is ineligible and is
elected then this should be treated as if they were elected and then
Furthermore it is really unacceptable to present this as a fait
acompli with a new selection date already set.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard(_at_)shockey(_dot_)us]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:31 PM
> To: 'IETF-Discussion'
> Subject: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
> This seems to be on the IETF NOMCOM web page but I do not see
> it in the ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org archives.
> I suggest that given the unique importance of this NOMCOM
> cycle that a fuller explanation is in order.
> First .. the instant there was a problem the IETF community
> should have been notified in full on this list.
> Second ...a complete explanation of why this go screwed up
> should have been posted to the community.
> 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.
> From: Andrew Lange <andrew(_dot_)lange(_at_)alcatel(_dot_)com>
> To: IETF Announcement
> Date: August 30, 2006
> Subject: NomCom 2006/07: Selection Process Reset
> A few members of the community have expressed concern over
> two issues with the selection process for this year's NomCom.
> First: The list of volunteers was published later than
> recommended by RFC 3777. This happened because, after the
> nominations period closed, there was some dispute on the
> eligibility of a number of NomCom volunteers.
> They were not on the secretariat's list, but they had
> attended the requisite number of IETF's. I chose to provide
> the secretariat some time to look into their eligibility
> because I was concerned about (in no particular order):
> 1) Disenfranchisement. I wanted to be sure that every voice
> that was willing to be heard, was heard. I didn't want an
> administrative snafu to prevent someone who wanted to from serving.
> 2) Representation. In order to ensure that the NomCom is
> representative of the community we need the largest possible
> body of eligible individuals.
> I believe that these are fundamental to the entire process of
> the IETF and NomCom.
> This resulted in the list being sent to the secretariat later
> than I would have liked, and the message then got hung up in
> the secretariat's queue.
> The selection is still deterministic, because the list
> ordering algorithm used (alpha by first name) is
> deterministic. However, since the list was published late,
> the appearance is not ideal.
> Second: A sitting member of the IAB's name appeared on the
> candidate list. According to 3777, section 15, sitting IAB,
> IESG and ISOC members are not eligible to serve on the
> Nomcom. This was an oversight on my part. Ordering in the
> list does matter for the selection process.
> Although this person was not selected to serve, and the harm
> done is minimal, it is important that the IETF follow our own
> processes as closely as possible.
> For these reasons, and after consultation with members of the
> IAB, IESG and ISOC, I have decided that to remove any doubt
> from the proceedings we must re-run the selection algorithm
> with new seed information.
> This is unfair to the people who volunteered for NomCom and
> are the backbone of the process. These people rightfully
> believed that they were or were not selected, and everyone
> selected was preparing to serve. To the volunteers: Thank
> you for volunteering, for your patience and understanding. I
> apologize for any inconvenience this reset may cause.
> In order to close this issue quickly, the same stocks and
> procedure will be used as last time, but the trading date
> will be drawn from the September 1, 2006 Wall Street Journal
> which reports the the sales figures from the previous trading
> day - August 31, 2006. The list we will use is the same as
> before, but with the IAB member's name removed. The list
> will be sent in a separate mail.
> Thank you.
> Richard Shockey
> Director, Member of the Technical Staff
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
> sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:5651(at)neustarlab.biz PSTN
> Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
> <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
> Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list