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

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns at mindspring.com>]

Yup. More specifically, "A" has to happen before close of trading on 
the day you're getting your random numbers from.

Unless I'm mistaken, I'm reading an overwhelming consensus NOT to 
reset from those posting on this list.  Given that close of trading 
for Andrew's reset is today we're about to get ourselves in very big trouble.

Andrew - I'd like to ask that you reverse yourself, or at least delay 
your second selection until at least next week.  I know you need to 
get the Nomcom up and running, but you need to consider the community 
feeling on this without being trapped into a misstep by a too-early deadline.

At 03:01 PM 8/31/2006, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
> If the main problem is that the Secretariat can't do its vetting job in
> time, for whatever reason, to allow the volunteer list to be publicly
> posted for a reasonable before selection takes place, there seem to be
> approximately three things you could do:
>         A. Leave as much as you can of the selection algorithm in place
> but change the date of selection to later to give the Secretariat more
> time and/or give time for public posting before selection.
>         B. Run the selection as scheduled and put out the volunteer list
> and selection at the same time.
>         C. Do B but then run yet another selection.
>
> Seems to me clear that A is superior and C is inferior and if I revise
> RFC 3797 I'll put in something about this case.
>
> Donald
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear at cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:24 PM
> To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
> Cc: IETF-Discussion
> Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
>
> Don,
>
> I'll reiterate what I said earlier, since it seems to be missed by many
> people.  The presence of an IAB member on the list, while an issue, is
> not my overwhelming concern.  My overwhelming concern is the fact that
> the volunteer list came out at the same time as the results.  That could
> allow for funny business, by the NOMCOM chair choosing the algorithm by
> which people are ordered.  I am by no means claiming that was done here,
> and I fully accept Andrew Lange's explanation, but I believe
> transparency demands redress in this circumstance, and the the best
> redress I could envision is rerunning the algorithm.
>
> 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