Ned,
Dave, I'm sorry, but it didn't show that at all. The specific problem
that
arose here WAS anticipated and analyzed and the correct thing to do in
this case
WAS determined and documented. See RFC 3797 section 5.1 for specifics.
I don't know how many ways I can say this, but 5.1 is irrelevant to the
problem I was concerned about, which is having the pool come out at the
same time as the results. That allows for mischief in many ways (not
that I'm accusing anyone of that). Under the circumstances I *still*
believe that the chair did the correct thing, and that his doing so has
ensured the integrity of the process.
First of all, as others have suggested, the problem with the proximity of the
list and result publication can be addressed trivially by having the
secretariat provide the list they received for vetting purposes as well as the
result they handed back. Maybe I missed a response from you on this, but AFAIK
you have yet to explain why this simple action wouldn't deal with your
concerns, both in the present situation and should a similar situation ever
arise in the future. (in fact I think you said that this would resolve the
issue for you, this time around at least.) In any case, I felt this solution to
your issue was so simple and obvious that there was no need to comment on it
further.
Second, I have yet to hear an explanation from you as to how the community can
be confident that the process wasn't gamed in the fashion I have previously
described. AFAIK you have failed to rebut this argument, and until you do I
have to say I regard something that's I see no way to check as many times more
serious than something that can be checked quite easily.
In short, I think you concerns are 180% out of sync with reality here.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf