See my other email for the answer to this... we had crossing messages.
On 4/25/2023 5:29 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:
The problem is that we already have difficulty keeping to a schedule.
If we have to have a sequence of
find random sources in the near future
announce random sources
allow protest of random sources
get random results
allow time for confirmation / objection to the random result
then we are adding a lot of time, potentially several iterations, to
the process. Is the risk you are raising worth the cost and
complexity? (And is it worth making the nomcom chair's job that much
more complicated? We already have trouble finding qualified people
willing to do the job.)
Yours,
Joel
On 4/25/2023 5:21 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 4/25/2023 3:22 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
I don't think re-randomize is what we should be doing. Just go to
the next one on the initial list.
The problem with that is gaming the system. Say I'm selected, but
the next on the list is someone from my organization that may have
more time on their hands. I can drop off without my organization
losing a vote. AIRC that was an actual problem for a previous
nomcom. An alternate scenario is that I'm an independent contractor
with substantial portions of my income coming from X, and say that an
X employee is next on the list. I might be subject to pressure or
remuneration to drop off.
Fore knowledge of the outcome is power of sorts and subject to
misuse. Better to make sure at any point where a decision is made,
those decisions are independent from later events.
Later, Mike
