A restart that selected other candidates would not be unbiased.
Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Galvin" <galvin+ietf(_at_)elistx(_dot_)com>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Cc: "'IETF-Discussion'" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
-- On Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:40 AM -0700 todd glassey
<tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net> wrote regarding Re: Now there seems to be
lack of communicaiton here... --
James I also agree with Donald's logic -
So then what happens when the selection process is restarted and
the ramdomizer is used again - say the second time it selects six
of the same candidates and the rest are different out of a pool
of 20 or 30 probably. How is that fair to those selected in the
original pick who now loses their potential seat to the process.
I'll only say that RFC3777 defines what it means by "fair and
unbiased," and I believe that what transpired was within that
definition. Specifically, a process is "fair" if any eligible
volunteer is equally likely to be selected.
Even a restart is allowed by the rules.
Now, was a restart the best choice given the issue at hand?
Personally I think there were other good choices that would have
served the purpose. Even so, it is the Chair's job to make that
decision and he obviously saw the situation differently.
Do I want to change the rules to prevent a restart in the future?
Not just yet, but I'm following the discussion and perhaps I'll
change my mind.
Jim
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf