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.
Jeff,
I agree that this is the best course of action.
I would also like to express my full support for Andrew's
decisions. Due to unfortunate circumstances, he got into
an unanticipated situation. He's being critized for the
decision to re-run the selection; but given that we had
several, not just one problem (timing and ineligible
members) the other options would also have been
problematic. Not an easy position to be in!
--Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf