Re: [Gendispatch] Re: Comments on Composition and Comportment of the IETF Nominating Committee draft

--000000000000d5a45b0657359dd0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 9:20=E2=80=AFAM Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote=
:

>
>    - The result of this would be to make the selection process not
>    publicly
>    - verifiable.
>
>
> I=E2=80=99m not so sure that this is true. To pick an obvious method, it =
might
> require public disclosure of the gender of those skipped over, to show th=
at
> you had to go to a different candidate.  Or we could decide to require th=
at
> being a NomCom volunteer might require disclosing your gender.
>

Yes, but these are both in contradiction with the paragraph directly above
which
requires them to be private.

 There are probably many trade-offs we could consider. Or that the previous
> NomCom chair also gets to know, and perhaps a designee of the ISOC
> President.
>

And these are not publicly verifiable.



> It=E2=80=99s about what set of trade-offs we want to make in pursuit of t=
his goal,
> if any.
>

Yes. What I am trying to say is that those tradeoffs need to be considered,
and
it's not just a simple extension of the existing two-per-company limit.

-Ekr

--000000000000d5a45b0657359dd0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote g=
mail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 22,=
 2026 at 9:20=E2=80=AFAM Salz, Rich &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]"=
>[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);p=
adding-left:1ex">



<div>
<ul style=3D"direction:ltr;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px">
<li style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;co=
lor:rgb(0,0,0);direction:ltr;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;list-style-ty=
pe:&quot;\0027a2  &quot;">
<div role=3D"presentation" style=3D"direction:ltr">The result of this would=
 be to make the selection process not publicly</div>
</li><li style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12=
pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);direction:ltr;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;list-sty=
le-type:&quot;\0027a2  &quot;">
<div role=3D"presentation" style=3D"direction:ltr">verifiable.</div>
</li></ul>
<div style=3D"direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;fo=
nt-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div><div style=3D"direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-se=
rif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
I=E2=80=99m not so sure that this is true. To pick an obvious method, it mi=
ght require public disclosure of the gender of those skipped over, to show =
that you had to go to a different candidate.=C2=A0 Or we could decide to re=
quire that being a NomCom volunteer might require
 disclosing your gender.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, b=
ut these are both in contradiction with=C2=A0the paragraph directly=C2=A0ab=
ove which</div><div>requires them to be private.</div><div><br></div><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1=
px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"direction:lt=
r;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0=
,0)"> =C2=A0There are probably many trade-offs we could consider. Or that t=
he previous NomCom chair also gets to know, and perhaps a designee of the I=
SOC President.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And these are no=
t publicly verifiable.</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid =
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"direction:ltr;font-fa=
mily:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> It=
=E2=80=99s about what set of trade-offs we want to make in pursuit of this =
goal, if
 any.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. What I am trying to =
say is that those tradeoffs need to be considered, and</div><div>it&#39;s n=
ot just a simple extension of the existing two-per-company limit.</div><div=
><br></div><div>-Ekr</div><div><br></div></div></div>

--000000000000d5a45b0657359dd0--