Ned Freed wrote:
The goal of
this process is not just to make it hard to game the system, but also
for everyone to be completely confident the system has not been
gamed. Allowing the same person that creates the list the authority
to later reject that list and start over based on an imperfection
that didn't lead to a bogus selection makes it impossible to have the
necessary confidence in the process.
This strikes me as a key point about managing problems with this process
(or maybe *any* IETF process.) A robust process has little or no
dependence on the vagaries of one or a few people. The issue is not
with the people but with the structure of the control mechanism.
The correct thing to do now is to reject the reest and stick with the
original list. The only case where a reset should be allowed is if
the process produced a bogus result.
It is entirely reasonable for there to have been concern that the pool
of candidates for nomcom was polluted. However the presence of concern
is not enough.
Is there any empirical (statistical) basis for asserting that the
presence of one ineligible member of the pool renders the entire
selection process invalid? I suspect not.
The pool was not small. So the sampling impact was not likely to be
large. Small impact warrants small reaction.
One, intuitive demonstration that the error did not have a systemic
effect to the selection process was that the ineligible member of the
pool was not chosen.
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,
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.
Ietf mailing list