The problem is demonstrative of the real issues with the IETF's processes
and that they are designed by people who particularly don't plan for
contingency - its a true testament to the Arrogance of the Technical Mind in
screaming loudly all the way to the Gallows that it mailed the check.
The point is not one of finding workarounds its one of designing the
contingencies into the process so that it remains fair and open and DOES NOT
leave way or cause for arbitrary actions by any of the administration.
Clearly the processes and 3777 need to be amended to deal with this
process-occurrence so that it doesn't happen again. And bluntly I don't
think there is any cause or precedent for the Chair to overturn process put
in place by the WG's unless you folks want to get into arguments about the
Chair acting as a Dictator...
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008"
<Donald(_dot_)Eastlake(_at_)motorola(_dot_)com>
To: "Eliot Lear" <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Cc: "IETF-Discussion" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
If the main problem is that the Secretariat can't do its vetting job in
time, for whatever reason, to allow the volunteer list to be publicly
posted for a reasonable before selection takes place, there seem to be
approximately three things you could do:
TSG: NO - ANYTHING THAT THE SECRETARIATE WAS TO DO WOULD REQUIRE A FORMAL
AMENDMENT TO THE 3777 OR OTHER DOCUMENTS TEXT AND ITS APPROVAL THROUGH THE
IESG ETC. - THE FAILINGS OF ONE DOCUMENT'S PROCESS FOR THE CURRENT ISSUES DO
NOT SET ASIDE THE LARGER ISSUES OF PROCESS.
A. Leave as much as you can of the selection algorithm in place
but change the date of selection to later to give the Secretariat more
time and/or give time for public posting before selection.
B. Run the selection as scheduled and put out the volunteer list
and selection at the same time.
C. Do B but then run yet another selection.
Seems to me clear that A is superior and C is inferior and if I revise
RFC 3797 I'll put in something about this case.
Donald
-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:24 PM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Cc: IETF-Discussion
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
Don,
I'll reiterate what I said earlier, since it seems to be missed by many
people. The presence of an IAB member on the list, while an issue, is
not my overwhelming concern. My overwhelming concern is the fact that
the volunteer list came out at the same time as the results. That could
allow for funny business, by the NOMCOM chair choosing the algorithm by
which people are ordered. I am by no means claiming that was done here,
and I fully accept Andrew Lange's explanation, but I believe
transparency demands redress in this circumstance, and the the best
redress I could envision is rerunning the algorithm.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
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