One simple fix here would be to publish the list on IETF announce BEFORE it
goes to the secretariat and to ONLY use that list regardless of whether people
are excluded or not.
This still leaves the question of what to do if people were left off the list
and need to be added in.
Another safeguard that can be put in place here is to date the choice of random
seeds a fixed time after the list is posted. If the nomcon is appointed late
well though, it does not matter.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ned Freed [mailto:ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:10 PM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: Ned Freed; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Ned,
Dave, I'm sorry, but it didn't show that at all. The specific
problem that arose here WAS anticipated and analyzed and
the correct
thing to do in this case WAS determined and documented.
See RFC 3797
section 5.1 for specifics.
I don't know how many ways I can say this, but 5.1 is irrelevant to
the problem I was concerned about, which is having the pool
come out
at the same time as the results. That allows for mischief in many
ways (not that I'm accusing anyone of that). Under the
circumstances
I *still* believe that the chair did the correct thing, and
that his
doing so has ensured the integrity of the process.
First of all, as others have suggested, the problem with the
proximity of the list and result publication can be addressed
trivially by having the secretariat provide the list they
received for vetting purposes as well as the result they
handed back. Maybe I missed a response from you on this, but
AFAIK you have yet to explain why this simple action wouldn't
deal with your concerns, both in the present situation and
should a similar situation ever arise in the future. (in fact
I think you said that this would resolve the issue for you,
this time around at least.) In any case, I felt this solution
to your issue was so simple and obvious that there was no
need to comment on it further.
Second, I have yet to hear an explanation from you as to how
the community can be confident that the process wasn't gamed
in the fashion I have previously described. AFAIK you have
failed to rebut this argument, and until you do I have to say
I regard something that's I see no way to check as many times
more serious than something that can be checked quite easily.
In short, I think you concerns are 180% out of sync with reality here.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf