1) Murray asked:
Does bullet 3 in Section 2 need to say more than it does now on that topic?
No. "Such a challenge must be
accompanied by an explanation of why that particular member is
not suitable." allows any kind of challenge, including libel.
I'm saying that the only allowable challenge here should be
on the grounds of insufficient recent IETF experience.
2) Therefore, with respect to what John writes below, +1.
Brian
On 11/04/2016 04:59, John C Klensin wrote:
Murray,
One more thought about the challenge process. Without
performing the experiment, we can only guess at how many
challenges there would be and that might make a difference.
However, I wonder whether, instead of adding "didn't attend
enough meetings and isn't appropriate" on to the challenge
criteria for post-selection challenges, it might be better to
create a different category and allow challenges on that basis
to people entering the selection pool.
In other words,
(1) The pool is announced (as today) with the "fewer meetings"
people identified (as you now suggest).
(2) There is a brief period for community challenges to those
who have not attended three of five meetings, paralleling the
period in which the Secretariat checks to be sure those who have
claimed three of five meetings really did attend.
(3) Once we get past step 2, the pool is the pool and, while any
one selected can be challenged under the rules of RFC 7437,
challenges based on meeting attendance are no longer allowed.
I'm not sure, and I'm a tad concerned about DoS attacks (see
above), but it seems to me that might be a little bit cleaner.
It would also have the property that potentially-controversial
challenges based on unsuitability would occur much earlier in
the process, before the random draw is made, and that might be
an advantage.
john