On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 2:08 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:The gaming cuts both ways.
If I don’t like the look of the make-up of the selected NomCom, I can choose to not respond and get the whole committee reselected. That seems like a worse problem than the one ekr notes.
I'm not proposing that. I'm saying that you rerun the selection process with the remaining eligible candidates to fill the requisite number of remaining spots.-Ekr
Adrian
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
Sent: 16 August 2022 20:58
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: nomcom-chair-2022@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: One week left to object
Joel,
Thanks for your note.
I can't speak to the historical understanding of this text but I believe that generating a new seed is
a better reading of the text for two reasons.
1. The text says that you have to "repeat the random selection process" and the previous section
4.16 entitled "selection process" includes publishing the list in advance and then subsequently
generating the random values. So, repeating this process should include generating a new seed.
2. Reusing the same seed allows for a (small) level of gaming in which a volunteer chooses
to make themselves unavailable because they see that the next person on the list would
be preferable (e.g., more persuasive or respected). Generating a new seed makes the system
harder to game.
-Ekr
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 12:48 PM Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am not sure I am properly parsing your email.
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.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/16/2022 3:41 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 12:40 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 8:49 AM NomCom Chair 2022 <nomcom-chair-2022@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
There's one week left to object to the current list of NomCom voting members. As a reminder, they are:
- Quan Xiong,Wuhan Zhongxing Software Company Limited
- Xuesong Geng,Huawei
- Geoff Huston,APN IC
- Sarah Banks,Corelight, Inc
- Georgios Karagiannis,Huawei
- Lixia Zhang,UCLA
- Jon Hudson,Desnet Industries & Spaced Out Radio
- Luc Andre Burdet,Cisco
- Mark Nottingham,Cloudflare
- Ran Chen,Nanjing Zhongxingxin Software Co.Ltd
One person has not responded to multiple attempts over the past week. The next three people on the list are:
- Ines Robles, Tampere University
- Huaimo Chen, Futurewei
- Daniel Havey, Microsoft
I emailed Ines yesterday to see if she is willing and able, and to Daniel this morning in case Ines cannot do it. Huaimo is disqualified because there are already two people from Huawei on the committee.
I do not believe that this is the correct process. RFC 7347 says:
Oops. 8713, but it says the same thing
o If the Chair is unable to contact a voting volunteer, the Chairmust repeat the random selection process in order to replace theunavailable volunteer. There should be at least one day betweenthe announcement of the iteration and the selection process.IOW, it doesn't matter who is next on the list. You need to rerun the randomizationto replace the missing volunteer.-Ekr
Please note that *anyone* can object to the list because of those omitted, not just the seven who were left off. For details, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/kAVc3aWAomaxeJSZvu_eEbwZVvI/.
Thank you.
-Rich Salz, 2022 NomCom Chair
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Can we at least stick to "fix it next time" so we can move on with this nomcom? We're talking about a small dob of cream on top of the cherry which is sitting on the banana which is on the ice cream we came here for.
It's about the one (1) last person.
G
On Wed, 17 Aug 2022, 7:15 am Eric Rescorla, <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
