All the othger parts of teh process that involve the chair picking and
randomizing call for a challenge period. When order was fully
determined, there was no need, as far as I can tell, for additional
review. But if the chair is running an additional process, the
structure of the rules assumes that would also have a challenge period.
I suppose we could go with a significantly shorter challenge period to
try to get this part to be done in a timely fashion. But we should
remember that we are talking about something late in the process.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/26/2023 8:50 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
Hi Rich,
Both of Michael's suggestions sound reasonable to me, i.e.,
(1) To re-randomize to minimize the risk of the system being gamed.
(2) To use other sources of randomness that are verifiable, but that are readily available without waiting a long time.
For clarity, are you saying that even if the verifiable sources of randomness were available in a relatively short time frame (e.g., max 24 hours) that would still necessitate a 1 or 2 week delay in the process?
Regards,
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Salz, Rich
Sent: 26 April 2023 13:42
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: NomCom selection Fwd: Notification for draft-eastlake-rfc3797bis-00.txt
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.
On 4/25/23, 5:24 PM, "Michael StJohns" <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The problem with that is gaming the system.
Yes that could be a problem. The trade-off is that redoing the randomization delays the process by at least a week, more likely two.
