[IP] Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Richard Shockey <richard@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 31, 2006 12:41:55 PM EDT
To: "'Jeffrey Hutzelman'" <jhutz@xxxxxxx>, "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'"
<pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Brian E Carpenter'" <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'Michael StJohns'" <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'IETF-Discussion'" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
Reply-To: richard@xxxxxxxxxx
Granted 3777 does not require the consultation of the community on
disputes
involving the NOMCOM but given the highly unusual nature of the
problem at
hand and the tendency of the IETF toward anal retentive behavior in
matters
of process it seems reasonable to suggest that a wider set of views
should
have been solicited.
I'm in complete agreement with Ned Freed here.
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."
And with Dave Crocker,
"Again, the underlying problem with the effort to fix the problem was
that
that effort was made too fragile by involving too few people, for
handling
such an exceptional situation."
However I'm willing to suggest that the damage has been done and we
should
respect Andrew Lange's decision. I may disagree with the process by
which
Andrew made his decision but in the final analysis a decision had to
be made
and he did it.
If the error had been discovered before the random data became
available,
the first choice would have been the obvious one. However, it was
not,
and
the situation is complicated by the fact that the list of
volunteers did
not become available in time for anyone to challenge eligibility
prior to
the random data becoming available. Even before the error in the
list was
discovered, I considered complaining about the timing issue and
suggesting
the remedy of running the process with new random data that would not
become available before people had a chance to object (in other
words, the
same remedy that Andrew ended up applying).
If you or anyone else feels that there is a problem, the correct
course of
action as described by RFC 3777 is to bring the issue to the nomcom
chair
and then, if the situation is not resolved to your satisfaction,
take it
to the ISOC President as a formal dispute. Nowhere does RFC 3777
suggest
that a suitable remedy is to complain on a public mailing list that
you
were not personally consulted.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/