At 9:31 PM -0400 8/30/06, Richard Shockey wrote:
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.
I think Richard is referring to this in Andrew's message:
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.
Speaking with my IESG hat on, the IESG as a whole was not consulted.
The first I heard of this was late last night, post-decision, and I understand
that the same is true of at least David, Lars, and Cullen. There was no
discussion of this by the IESG prior to this decision having been taken.
Whoever Andrew consulted may serve on the IESG, but the IESG was
not brought in to discuss this and it had no role in making this decision.
Speaking with my personal hat on, I am glad that the IESG was not
consulted. Having the IESG have much influence on a decision like
could be worrying in other contexts. I am sorry, however, that Andrew
did not put the problem and his proposed course of action to the community
for a comment period, so that the whole IETF community would know
and could discuss that the issue had come up and what the resolution
would be. Since this is the first time (to my knowledge, anyway) this
has happened, I assume the next NomCom chair to have to face this
will know that some folks prefer this type of decision to have a "Last Call"
period.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf