Re: An objection was raised

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 8/17/2022 2:13 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
Hi,

Can you provide more context regarding what's the issue here?

Is this related to the folks that were not elligible due to being part of the ISOC board?

And the objection is against picking "the net folk" in the list, as opposed to pick another random number? Or what?


The general issue is about changing the list after the selection has been done. These changes happen for two reasons: someone is found ineligible; or, someone declined to participate.

The current process provides for an unpredictable and verifiable random selection. Given a list of candidates, the randomized process provides an ordering of the list. The nomcom chair is constrained to select the first N candidates according to that order. The design accounted for people found ineligible, e.g., because there were already 2 participants selected from their company. In that case, the nomcom chair just picks the next candidate according to the randomized order.

I think that we do not have a big problem if someone is found ineligible after the selection, and that picking the next candidate in the random order just works. However, we do have a problem if one of the selected members decide to decline at the last moment, because at that point the order of the list is predictable. So we can see games in which a given selected member observes that "if I quit, then candidate N+1 is selected, and I know that my company would prefer this candidate N+1 in the committee, for example because of seniority." We may be worried about that kind of games.

The proposal to just run the algorithm again with the remaining not-yet-selected candidates has the same predictability issue. If the random seeds are published, anyone can predict who "N+1" will be. To achieve unpredictability, the process will have to incorporate a new source of randomness. But that requires some delay, such as waiting for the next results of a lottery. That may well not be practical. It is probably not practical at all now, because we are running out of time.

In fact, there are multiple ways to design algorithms like that, maybe using additional random seeds put in some kind of escrow by the nomcom chair before the initial lotteries, instead of relying only on external lotteries. I do not expect than the IETF would converge on a solution in just a couple of days. Which means, for 2022, Rich has to make some kind of executive decision.

-- Christian Huitema





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux