On Fri, Jul 7, 2023, at 23:47, Salz, Rich wrote: > I am a bit confused about the latest announcement. > >> I will disqualify a selection as necessary and immediately select the next volunteer. > > A minor nit. You don't mean the next one in the list, you mean the next > one as determined by the cascading digest list, right? Exactly. "next" being determined by the RFC 3797 algorithm. >> As always, if you believe an error was made, decisions can be challenged. Any challenges will be announced and a redraw will occur with newly chosen random seeds. > > I had thought you were planning on using the hash-chain for ALL cases > of "have to pick a new voting volunteer." I guess I interpreted > "otherwise unable to serve" from [1] as including disqualification. If someone is obviously ineligible, I won't use the hash chain. That part is normal. The hash chain only exists for unanticipated problems, like someone refusing to participate. If there is a challenge, that means that something has failed and probably something that is my fault. See also [1], where I discuss the weakness created by using the one-time password. Therefore, I believe it best to remove the possibility of my own (or yours, as you know the secret also) interference in the process. Consequently, it is better to require a full set of new seeds if any redraws are needed after a challenge. [1] https://martinthomson.github.io/vrs/draft-thomson-elegy-vrs.html#name-facilitators-and-selecting-
