[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NomCom randomness results... delayed

2017-07-06 16:10:56
Hi Peter,

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Peter Yee <peter(_at_)akayla(_dot_)com> wrote:

For the 2017-2018 NomCom, you would have needed to check the box for
registration for any of IETF 96-98 (Berlin, Seoul, and Chicago).  Your
checking the box on the IETF 99 registration form will put you on the list
of the 2018-2019 NomCom, assuming you are eligible.

Thanks. This was not what I understood when I checked the box. Maybe it
should be made clearer in the future forms.
This is the question in the form:

Are you willing to volunteer for the Nomcom?



*From:* ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] *On Behalf Of *Behcet 
*Sent:* Thursday, July 06, 2017 1:45 PM
*To:* Michael StJohns
*Cc:* IETF
*Subject:* Re: NomCom randomness results... delayed

Hi all,

Regarding the list of volunteers, I had checked the box for volunteering
for Nomcom when I registered for IETF 99 with payment,despite that my name
is not in the list.

What makes?



On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Michael StJohns 

On 7/6/2017 12:25 PM, NomCom Chair 2017 wrote:

I had planned to pull the randomness results today, but there will be a
slight delay.  While the EuroMillions and Powerball results are available
(nothing like the lottery for being timely), the US debt numbers are still
only showing the values for July 3rd.  The July 4th US holiday may have
something to do with that, although I would have expected the July 5th
numbers to be up by now.

My plan for the moment is to examine the numbers tomorrow and see if the
expected US debt data are available.  If so, I'll run with the published
inputs.  If not, I'll have to use the latest available US debt numbers,
which I will document in the randomness results announcement.  Please let
me know if this plan causes any concerns.

Peter Yee
NomCom Chair 2017-18
peter at akayla dot com
nomcom-chair-2017 at ietf dot org

Hi Peter -

You should pick a new date and a new set of variables, and announce rather
than mixing and matching data you (we) already know with something you
would pick later.  That maintains the integrity of the process by keeping
human choice out of the process.  I'd probably also provide a caveat for
when the data isn't available (e.g. a substitute).


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>