On Thursday, August 31, 2006 09:26:11 AM -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
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.
I agree with Ned here that an important design feature of this process is
that it is easy to verify that the process was carried out correctly and
that its results were not tampered with.
I also agree with Dave that any failing in the present instance is in the
process which allowed a situation to develop in which the results could be
tampered with, and not with Andrew Lange's handling of that situation. I
don't think anyone believes there was foul play here, but the problem is
that a situation arose in which someone had to decide how to proceed, and
that decision had predictable results. Worse, it is trivially easy for a
future nomcom chair to recreate that situation, and it may be possible even
for some other person to do so.
I've reviewed the specification for this process, including the random
selection algorithm, several times over the past few years. I've always
believed the selection process was reasonably well-designed to meet its
goals, and I certainly didn't predict the present situation. However, now
that it's been raised, it seems reasonable to fix it _for the future_.
Therefore, I propose the following:
(1) Andrew's decision stands. Under RFC 3777, the only recourse available
to anyone who disagrees with that decision would be to ask Andrew to
reconsider or to file a dispute with the ISOC President. The former
has already been done, and so far no reversal has been announced.
Given that it is now after the close of trading on August 31, I would
submit that a reversal of this decision by either Andrew or Lynn would
do more harm than good.
(2) Text is added to the next version of the selection process to addresss
this issue. I would suggest a strengthening of the existing language
about leaving questionable candidates in the list and rejecting them
in a later pass. In fact, it might be wiser to require the use of the
original list of volunteers as given to the secretariat and _always_
rejecting ineligible candidates in a later pass. This would remove
any need to insure that errors or disputes about eligibility be
resolved before the random data becomes available.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf