On Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:11:51 AM -0700 Dave Crocker
<dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net> wrote:
James Galvin wrote:
But there is a part of the process that is not public: the
actual selection of eligible volunteers.
1) The criteria are public. 2) The result is public, with the intention
of time for review. I'm not sure how the internals of going from 1 to 2
could be made public and still function. Since the criteria are
reasonably objective, I'm having trouble seeing how "transparency" on the
"decision" process is meaningful.
I agree. The important property here is not that any part of the process
be observable, but that the results be independently verifiable. That is
done by making all of the inputs(*) public before the process runs, and
using a well-defined, fixed algorithm.
(*) For this purpose, the random data itself is not an "input", but the
identification of the random source(s) and exactly how they are to be
sampled is.
At base, I suspect this demonstrates the problem with our being too
rule-oriented, and not enough community oriented. It loses sight of the
underpinnings of comfort and legitimacy, and that is community review and
approval when a situation does -- or reasonably might -- entail the
unknown or, at least, controversy.
Really, as soon as the need or ability to make a decision as to whether to
reset had been made, we had already lost.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf