I agree as well. Again, having started this charming little discussion
thread, any other course of action at this late stage would cause more
problems than it would solve.
R. Shockey
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel(_at_)stevecrocker(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:40 PM
To: IETF-Discussion
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
I agree that this seems to be the best course available.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 09:08 PM 8/31/2006, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:55:25PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Therefore, I propose the following:
(1) Andrew's decision stands. Under RFC 3777, the only recourse
available to anyone who disagrees with that decision would be to ask
Andrew to reconsider or to file a dispute with the ISOC President. The
former has already been done, and so far no reversal has been announced.
Given that it is now after the close of trading on August 31, I
would submit that a reversal of this decision by either Andrew or Lynn
would do more harm than good.
(2) Text is added to the next version of the selection process to
addresss this issue. I would suggest a strengthening of the existing
language about leaving questionable candidates in the list and rejecting
them in a later pass. In fact, it might be wiser to require the use of
the original list of volunteers as given to the secretariat and
always rejecting ineligible candidates in a later pass. This would remove
any need to insure that errors or disputes about eligibility be resolved
before the random data becomes available.
I think Jeff proposal makes a lot of sense and is probably the best
way to move forward given the current circumstances.
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf