As someone who was actually selected in the previous round and started this
little thread, I support this position.
I've reviewed the specification for this process, including the random
selection algorithm, several times over the past few years. I've always
believed the selection process was reasonably well-designed to meet its
goals, and I certainly didn't predict the present situation. However, now
that it's been raised, it seems reasonable to fix it _for the future_.
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.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf