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

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Shockey <richard () shockey us>
Date: August 31, 2006 12:41:55 PM EDT
To: "'Jeffrey Hutzelman'" <jhutz () cmu edu>, "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'"  
<pbaker () verisign com>, "'Brian E Carpenter'" <brc () zurich ibm com>,  
"'Michael StJohns'" <mstjohns () mindspring com>
Cc: "'IETF-Discussion'" <ietf () ietf org>
Subject: RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
Reply-To: richard () shockey us



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 () ietf org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/