That was the British use of the term "unlikely".
Stewart
Sent from my iPad
On 28 Mar 2013, at 14:05, "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 3/28/2013 6:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny,
because the criteria would surely have included being experienced
with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison process, including
knowing and understanding the liaison history. Therefore it
seems unlikely that there would be any candidate that the IAB
did not already know about.
Stuart,
It's important that you used the word "unlikely", since it underscores the
legitimacy of the problem being raised: The issue is not that there probably
would not have been a better choice, but the lack of certitude about it.
Further, the rationale you offer essentially is one of efficiency, but open
processes rarely stand the scrutiny of 'efficiency' concerns.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net