James Galvin wrote:
But there is a part of the process that is not public: the
actual selection of eligible volunteers.
1) The criteria are public. 2) The result is public, with the intention
of time for review. I'm not sure how the internals of going from 1 to 2
could be made public and still function. Since the criteria are
reasonably objective, I'm having trouble seeing how "transparency" on
the "decision" process is meaningful.
So, as editor of the document, I just want to point out that I believe
that what transpired was allowed under the rules. If we, as a
community, don't like what transpired, then we need to change the rules.
At base, I suspect this demonstrates the problem with our being too
rule-oriented, and not enough community oriented. It loses sight of the
underpinnings of comfort and legitimacy, and that is community review
and approval when a situation does -- or reasonably might -- entail the
unknown or, at least, controversy.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf