This is a reasonable point, though as I noted, I think there are prudential reasons in the other direction as well.
TBH, the text in 4.16 is not super clear:
It must be possible to independently verify that
the selection method used is both fair and
unbiased. A method is fair if each eligible
volunteer is equally likely to be selected. A
method is unbiased if no one can influence its
outcome in favor of a specific outcome.
It must be possible to repeat the selection method,
either through iteration or by restarting in such a
way as to remain fair and unbiased. This is
necessary to replace selected volunteers should they
become unavailable after selection.
This text suggests you could reiterate *or* restart. However the problem is that the iterate procedure does not leave the overall outcome unbiased, because, as I said, one of the selectees can in fact influence the process.
-Ekr
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 1:00 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
- The historical understanding has been that "repeat the random selection process" means to repeat it with the same seed and list. As such, selecting the next person on the list in order is equivalent to repeating the process.
This is my understanding as well. Starting over from picking new seeds means adding at least a week, if not two, which doesn’t seem like what the intent was.
-Rich Salz, 2022 NomCom Chair
