Re: draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-01.txt

[avri doria <avri@sm.luth.se>]

Christian Huitema wrote:
> >
> The recommendation appears technically sound, but the process is very
> much a geeky option compared to the previous "standard", picking names
> from a hat. For that reason, I support a publication as an independent
> document rather than incorporation in the base nomcom document: future
> nomcom chairs should have the liberty to use the computer based system
> described in RFC 2777 (bis), or use instead an analog system with
> suitable guarantees.

There isn't, as far as i know, a proposal to include the material from 
this draft in the base document.  The issue concerns the procedure 
outlined in rfc2777bis  for  handling the possible need to replace one 
of the 10 voting members selected.  One of the criticisms i have heard 
is that if you select members and alternates, then the door is opened to 
inappropriate pressure, either for or against, the replacement of a 
voting member based on the identity of the available alternate.

The issue at hand, as i understood it, was that the procedure for 
selecting alternates/replacements should not be resolved in 2777bis but 
should rather be dealt with in the base document (2727bis).

a.