As someone who was actually selected in the previous round and started this
little thread, I support this position.
> I've reviewed the specification for this process, including the random
> selection algorithm, several times over the past few years. I've always
> believed the selection process was reasonably well-designed to meet its
> goals, and I certainly didn't predict the present situation. However, now
> that it's been raised, it seems reasonable to fix it _for the future_.
>
> 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.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
