James I also agree with Donald's logic - So then what happens when the selection process is restarted and the ramdomizer is used again - say the second time it selects six of the same candidates and the rest are different out of a pool of 20 or 30 probably. How is that fair to those selected in the original pick who now loses their potential seat to the process.
Todd Glassey ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Galvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'IETF-Discussion'" <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:41 AM Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here... > > -- On Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:31 PM -0400 Richard Shockey > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Now there seems to be lack of > communicaiton here... -- > > > First .. the instant there was a problem the IETF community > > should have been notified in full on this list. > > Perhaps, in this particular case, but in general the NOMCOM > operates under the veil of confidentiality. Historically that veil > has covered most everything about the NOMCOM (in spite of the > "leakage"), and I would not expect that to change any time soon. > > Personally I am not particularly fond of this aspect of our NOMCOM. > I think the veil of confidentiality should be much more constrained > but that has not been the community consensus over the years. > > > Third .. the IETF community AS A WHOLE should have been consulted > > as to possible remedies to this "problem" etc. Consultations to > > the IESG and IAB are not sufficient on matters of such gravity. > > Section 4 Nominating Committee Selection, Item 16 states: > > It must be possible to repeat the selection method, either > through iteration or by restarting in such a way as to remain > fair and unbiased. This is necessary to replace selected > volunteers should they become unavailable after selection. > > The fact that Andrew chose to restart the process is within the > rules. > > Also, since there is no enumeration of what "become unavailable" > means, it would have been within the rules to simply iterate the > selection process if an oversight or anomaly or even a challenge > had been determined after the selection. > > Consulting with the IAB and IESG is not called out as an option in > the document but neither is consulting with the IETF community. > > In fact, (speaking as Editor of the document) the rules lean > towards the Chair simply conducting the selection process to the > best of his or her ability, while keeping the community informed. > No consultation necessary except where explicitly stated. The > primary reason for this is that there is a schedule to keep. > > Jim > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
