[IP] more on Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 31, 2006 1:16:50 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
For IP:
It is IMO unfortunate (and unhelpful) that the message with the above
subject was forwarded to IP. It is one note out of a long thread (that
I am sure is still going strong as we speak), and it does not contain
any sort of necessary context to provide balance/perspective.
I've appended the original note that kicked the discussion off. If you
want more details, read the thread starting here:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg43275.html
Thomas
From: Andrew Lange <andrew.lange@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: IETF Announcement list <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:56:36 -0400
Subject: NomCom 2006/07: Selection Process Reset
A few members of the community have expressed concern over two issues
with
the selection process for this year's NomCom.
First: The list of volunteers was published later than recommended by
RFC
3777. This happened because, after the nominations period closed, there
was some dispute on the eligibility of a number of NomCom volunteers.
They were not on the secretariat's list, but they had attended the
requisite number of IETF's. I chose to provide the secretariat some
time
to look into their eligibility because I was concerned about (in no
particular order):
1) Disenfranchisement. I wanted to be sure that every voice that was
willing to be heard, was heard. I didn't want an administrative
snafu to
prevent someone who wanted to from serving.
2) Representation. In order to ensure that the NomCom is representative
of the community we need the largest possible body of eligible
individuals.
I believe that these are fundamental to the entire process of the IETF
and NomCom.
This resulted in the list being sent to the secretariat later than I
would have liked, and the message then got hung up in the secretariat's
queue.
The selection is still deterministic, because the list ordering
algorithm
used (alpha by first name) is deterministic. However, since the list
was
published late, the appearance is not ideal.
Second: A sitting member of the IAB's name appeared on the candidate
list. According to 3777, section 15, sitting IAB, IESG and ISOC members
are not eligible to serve on the Nomcom. This was an oversight on my
part. Ordering in the list does matter for the selection process.
Although this person was not selected to serve, and the harm done is
minimal, it is important that the IETF follow our own processes as
closely
as possible.
For these reasons, and after consultation with members of the IAB, IESG
and ISOC, I have decided that to remove any doubt from the
proceedings we
must re-run the selection algorithm with new seed information.
This is unfair to the people who volunteered for NomCom and are the
backbone of the process. These people rightfully believed that they
were
or were not selected, and everyone selected was preparing to serve. To
the volunteers: Thank you for volunteering, for your patience and
understanding. I apologize for any inconvenience this reset may cause.
In order to close this issue quickly, the same stocks and procedure will
be used as last time, but the trading date will be drawn from the
September 1, 2006 Wall Street Journal which reports the the sales
figures
from the previous trading day - August 31, 2006. The list we will
use is
the same as before, but with the IAB member's name removed. The list
will
be sent in a separate mail.
Thank you.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
-------------------------------------
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/