Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
At 04:39 AM 8/31/2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
> I agree with Phillip - there is no harm here. If someone ineligible
> had happened to be selected, they would have been immediately
> disqualified and the next number on the list selected. That's why you
> actually ask for about 16 numbers to be output when you run the
> program which outputs the selection numbers. There is no reason for a
> reset. (However, see my comments on volunteer associations).
Mike, it's not often, but you and I disagree on this one. There were
two problems. Don't forget that the list of volunteers was announced
along with the selection process.
And it's actually supposed to be announced 1 week prior to such
process. Given the delay in getting the volunteer list vetted, he
should have announced a delay in the selection PRIOR to the day of
selection. He didn't. One of the reasons for announcing such list
is to prevent issues similar to this.
I fully accept Andrew Lange's
explanation that a message got hung in the queue. Never-the-less,
selection of our leadership should not be taken lightly. When the
foul-up was discovered, the chair followed the procedure that was
documented.
What procedure and where is it documented?
Please let's recognize that Mr. Lange has erred on the side
of transparency. I applaud his choice.
While I don't believe that Mr Lange is trying to game the system,
nonetheless, it's inappropriate for him to void the result of the
selection process for any reason other than the most egregious. E.g.
because some volunteer wasn't included on the list of volunteers and
should have been. The whole selection process is based on removing
the possibility of outside interference and I'd say that voiding the
selection is a pretty large outside interference. I can't read 3777
in any way that would allow this.
Let me review the bidding. Andrew proposes to remove the ineligible
volunteer and rerun the process. If the ineligible volunteer HAD been
selected previously, the right0
Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.67])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GInx0-0005Ap-HL
for ietf at ietf.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:55:27 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com;
b=JgZSvanUY8Vf6nNO17SQRyVUPExVAAwjMMR7kPiiGWwFe01BvDo89WPDk6+dMkJD;
h=Received:Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [68.48.60.244] (helo=STJOHNS-LAPTOP2.mindspring.com)
by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp
(TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.34)
id 1GInwy-0002If-2Q; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:55:24 -0400
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20060831104105.03f48148 at mindspring.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:55:34 -0400
To: Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns at mindspring.com>
In-Reply-To: <44F6A04D.5010400 at cisco.com>
References: <198A730C2044DE4A96749D13E167AD37D3F257 at MOU1WNEXMB04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
<7.0.1.0.2.20060831013017.03fbe300 at mindspring.com>
<44F6A04D.5010400 at cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-ELNK-Trace: 9f6ded143da542dc9c7f779228e2f6aeda0071232e20db4d1c80f2dedc3eb712ba85338ade26e3e4350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 68.48.60.244
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135
Cc: IETF-Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>, richard at shockey.us
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
At 04:39 AM 8/31/2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
> I agree with Phillip - there is no harm here. If someone ineligible
> had happened to be selected, they would have been immediately
> disqualified and the next number on the list selected. That's why you
> actually ask for about 16 numbers to be output when you run the
> program which outputs the selection numbers. There is no reason for a
> reset. (However, see my comments on volunteer associations).
Mike, it's not often, but you and I disagree on this one. There were
two problems. Don't forget that the list of volunteers was announced
along with the selection process.
And it's actually supposed to be announced 1 week prior to such
process. Given the delay in getting the volunteer list vetted, he
should have announced a delay in the selection PRIOR to the day of
selection. He didn't. One of the reasons for announcing such list
is to prevent issues similar to this.
I fully accept Andrew Lange's
explanation that a message got hung in the queue. Never-the-less,
selection of our leadership should not be taken lightly. When the
foul-up was discovered, the chair followed the procedure that was
documented.
What procedure and where is it documented?
Please let's recognize that Mr. Lange has erred on the side
of transparency. I applaud his choice.
While I don't believe that Mr Lange is trying to game the system,
nonetheless, it's inappropriate for him to void the result of the
selection process for any reason other than the most egregious. E.g.
because some volunteer wasn't included on the list of volunteers and
should have been. The whole selection process is based on removing
the possibility of outside interference and I'd say that voiding the
selection is a pretty large outside interference. I can't read 3777
in any way that would allow this.
Let me review the bidding. Andrew proposes to remove the ineligible
volunteer and rerun the process. If the ineligible volunteer HAD been
selected previously, the right answer would be to strike his name
from the selectee list and use the 11th output of the random number
dealer to select the replacement which is the process used if you get
more than 2 people with the same affilitiation. Given that the
ineligible volunteer was not selected, there's no reason to even do that.
The random dealer is just that - random. The presence or absence of
extraneous volunteers on the list does not change the probability of
the selection of any given volunteer. Given that there is no reason
to rerun the selection that I can see.
I still want to see the affiliations of both the volunteers and the
liasons as is required by 3777.
Mike
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
answer would be to strike his name
from the selectee list and use the 11th output of the random number
dealer to select the replacement which is the process used if you get
more than 2 people with the same affilitiation. Given that the
ineligible volunteer was not selected, there's no reason to even do that.
The random dealer is just that - random. The presence or absence of
extraneous volunteers on the list does not change the probability of
the selection of any given volunteer. Given that there is no reason
to rerun the selection that I can see.
I still want to see the affiliations of both the volunteers and the
liasons as is required by 3777.
Mike
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions
of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
