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

[James Galvin <galvin+ietf at elistx.com>]

-- On Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:46 AM -0700 Dave Crocker 
<dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote regarding Re: Now there seems to be lack 
of communicaiton here... --


> James Galvin wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Specifically, the process of selecting the nomcom does *not*.
>
>
>   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.
>
> The process of selecting the nomcom has been fully public for a
> very long time.

Most of the random selection process has been public for a long 
time, because of the requirement for it to be verifiable by third 
parties.  This just means that enough of it is public to ensure it 
can be verified.  But there is a part of the process that is not 
public: the actual selection of eligible volunteers.

I have not been party to any discussions of this issue outside this 
list, but as I understand it the issue(s) that surfaced was(were) 
related to that part of the process.

Personally, I think that restarting the process was overkill, but 
then it depends on how you judge "fair and unbiased", which is the 
principal requirement in RFC3777.  We are dependent on the Chair to 
"do the right thing."  The document says that in so many words.

So, as editor of the document, I just want to point out that I 
believe that what transpired was allowed under the rules.  If we, 
as a community, don't like what transpired, then we need to change 
the rules.

Jim


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