|
Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
2006-08-31 11:09:22
Brian
Ok if you were not being asked in your official capacity then why not ask me? I
have some expertise in security protocols.
Allowing the reset nullifies the process entirely.
Phill
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Michael StJohns
Cc: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; richard(_at_)shockey(_dot_)us; IETF-Discussion
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
Mike and Phill,
Phill's assertion is wrong - the IAB and IESG has no control over
this; such decisions are between the Nomcom Chair and the ISOC President.
I don't see anything in RFC 3777 that sends disputes back to
the community. In this case, nobody even got as far as invoking the
dispute procedure before Andrew took action.
Full disclosure: My personal opinion, which I *did* give to Lynn and
Andrew when I became aware of this glitch, is that a reset is the only
way to be certain that the selection process is unbiased.
Brian
Michael StJohns wrote:
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
immediately disqualified.
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.
Andrew
Richard Shockey
Director, Member of the Technical Staff
NeuStar
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
| <Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
|
Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here..., Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip <=
RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here..., Hallam-Baker, Phillip
RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here..., Cimbala, Matthew
RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here..., Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here..., Scott Bradner
Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here..., Scott Bradner
|
|
|