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

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker at bbiw.net>]

James Galvin wrote:
>   But there is a part of the process that is not public: the 
> actual selection of eligible volunteers.

1) The criteria are public.  2) The result is public, with the intention 
of time for review.  I'm not sure how the internals of going from 1 to 2 
could be made public and still function.  Since the criteria are 
reasonably objective, I'm having trouble seeing how "transparency" on 
the "decision" process is meaningful.


> 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.

At base, I suspect this demonstrates the problem with our being too 
rule-oriented, and not enough community oriented. It loses sight of the 
underpinnings of comfort and legitimacy, and that is community review 
and approval when a situation does -- or reasonably might -- entail the 
unknown or, at least, controversy.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

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