Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

[Ned Freed <ned.freed at mrochek.com>]

> Mike and Phill,

> Phill's assertion is wrong - the IAB and IESG has no control over
> this; such decisions are between the Nomcom Chair and the ISOC President.

Unfortunately this makes things much worse, not better. Who's to say that 
Andrew didn't intentionally leave the IAB member on the list because doing so
gave him two bites at the selection apple? He then rolled the dice, for
whatever reason didn't like the outcome, called "foul" and reset the process.
The odds are pretty good that whatever thing he didn't like won't be repeated
on the second list.

Of course I'm not saying that's what happened. Rather, I'm saying that I see no
way to be sure that _isn't_ what happened. The goal of this process is not just
to make it hard to game the system, but also for everyone to be completely
confident the system has not been gamed. Allowing the same person that creates
the list the authority to later reject that list and start over based on an
imperfection that didn't lead to a bogus selection makes it impossible to have
the necessary confidence in the process.

The correct thing to do now is to reject the reest and stick with the original
list. The only case where a reset should be allowed is if the process produced
a bogus result.

> Full disclosure: My personal opinion, which I *did* give to Lynn and
> Andrew when I became aware of this glitch, is that a reset is the only
> way to be certain that the selection process is unbiased.

Well, I have to say I think you provided some extremely bad advice, and I
sincerely hope that there isn't anyone on the first list that has an even
slightly acrimonious public relationship with Andrew. We could be in very deep
doo if there is.

				Ned

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf