At 04:39 AM 8/31/2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote: > I agree with Phillip - there is no harm here. If someone ineligible > had happened to be selected, they would have been immediately > disqualified and the next number on the list selected. That's why you > actually ask for about 16 numbers to be output when you run the > program which outputs the selection numbers. There is no reason for a > reset. (However, see my comments on volunteer associations). Mike, it's not often, but you and I disagree on this one. There were two problems. Don't forget that the list of volunteers was announced along with the selection process.
And it's actually supposed to be announced 1 week prior to such process. Given the delay in getting the volunteer list vetted, he should have announced a delay in the selection PRIOR to the day of selection. He didn't. One of the reasons for announcing such list is to prevent issues similar to this.
I fully accept Andrew Lange's explanation that a message got hung in the queue. Never-the-less, selection of our leadership should not be taken lightly. When the foul-up was discovered, the chair followed the procedure that was documented.
What procedure and where is it documented?
Please let's recognize that Mr. Lange has erred on the side of transparency. I applaud his choice.
While I don't believe that Mr Lange is trying to game the system, nonetheless, it's inappropriate for him to void the result of the selection process for any reason other than the most egregious. E.g. because some volunteer wasn't included on the list of volunteers and should have been. The whole selection process is based on removing the possibility of outside interference and I'd say that voiding the selection is a pretty large outside interference. I can't read 3777 in any way that would allow this.
Let me review the bidding. Andrew proposes to remove the ineligible volunteer and rerun the process. If the ineligible volunteer HAD been selected previously, the right answer would be to strike his name from the selectee list and use the 11th output of the random number dealer to select the replacement which is the process used if you get more than 2 people with the same affilitiation. Given that the ineligible volunteer was not selected, there's no reason to even do that.
The random dealer is just that - random. The presence or absence of extraneous volunteers on the list does not change the probability of the selection of any given volunteer. Given that there is no reason to rerun the selection that I can see.
I still want to see the affiliations of both the volunteers and the liasons as is required by 3777.
Mike
Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf