To maintain the integrity of the process as-intended by RFC 3797, there can be no changes to the candidate pool once the seeds have been determined (i.e., once the selected events have come to pass). At that point, the pool must be immutable. If there are policy disqualifications such as those you've identified, Barry, they must now be made by skipping such candidates after the order has been determined. While the text in the RFC refers to "uncertainty" in the pool:
The best way to handle this is to maintain the announced schedule,
INCLUDE in the published pool all those whose eligibility is
uncertain and to keep the published pool list numbering IMMUTABLE
after its publication. If someone in the pool is later selected by
the algorithm and random input but it has been determined they are
ineligible, they can be skipped and the algorithm run further to make
an additional selection.
INCLUDE in the published pool all those whose eligibility is
uncertain and to keep the published pool list numbering IMMUTABLE
after its publication. If someone in the pool is later selected by
the algorithm and random input but it has been determined they are
ineligible, they can be skipped and the algorithm run further to make
an additional selection.
the need to avoid any possibility of gaming the selection process is the *purpose* of the pool being made immutable prior to determination of the seeds, and so using the resolution process recommended for "uncertain eligibility" for those who should have been removed at an earlier stage is the only appropriate action at this point.
Kyle
On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 8:24 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rich, I note that on the last "final list" that you posted, you still
list me and Victor Kuarsingh. We both asked you to remove our names,
because as ISOC Trustees we can not be on the NomCom (the ISOC BoT is
the confirmation body for IAB selections).
Did you run the algorithm with our names on the list? Did you remove
our names before running the algorithm? Running the algorithm against
the list you posted on 25 July does not give the same results you
posted below. Can you please post the actual volunteer list that you
used, with the volunteers numbered?
Thanks,
Barry
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 11:54 AM NomCom Chair 2022
<nomcom-chair-2022@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The random seeds, as specified earlier, are as follows:
> # The seven numbers from Tuesday August 2 Euro-Millions
> 7 18 28 40 48 8 11
> # The six numbers from Monday August 1 US Powerball
> 15 21 31 36 65 16
> # The eight numbers from Saturday July 30 Australian TattsLotto
> 17 21 12 26 8 42 35 13
> # The nine numbers from the July 29 Japanese Lotto 7
> 1 10 13 14 16 25 27 5 21
>
> I implemented RFC 3797 in Python and it can be found at https://github.com/richsalz/ietf-rfc3797 It includes a test-case to run against the "worked example" from that RFC.
>
> The following people have been picked:
> Mike Jones Microsoft michael.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxx p1+p2
> Ron Bonica Juniper Networks rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx p1+p2+p3
> Marc Petit-Huguenin Impedance Mismatch LLC marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx p1+p3
> Chris Lemmons Comcast alficles@xxxxxxxxx p1
> Vishnu Pavan Beeram Juniper Networks vbeeram@xxxxxxxxxxx p1+p2+p3
> Sarah Banks Corelight sbanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx p1+p2+p3
> Varun Singh Daily.co varun.singh@xxxxxx p3
> Pascal Thubert Cisco Systems pthubert@xxxxxxxxx p1+p2+p3
> Daniel King Lancaster University d.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx p1+p3
> Christian Huitema Private Octopus Inc. huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx p1+p3
>
> I have contacted them separately. This note starts the two-week challenge time.
>
