A restart that selected other candidates would not be unbiased. Todd Glassey ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Galvin" <galvin+ietf@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "'IETF-Discussion'" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:13 AM Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here... > > > -- On Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:40 AM -0700 todd glassey > <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote regarding Re: Now there seems to be > lack of communicaiton here... -- > > > James I also agree with Donald's logic - > > > > So then what happens when the selection process is restarted and > > the ramdomizer is used again - say the second time it selects six > > of the same candidates and the rest are different out of a pool > > of 20 or 30 probably. How is that fair to those selected in the > > original pick who now loses their potential seat to the process. > > I'll only say that RFC3777 defines what it means by "fair and > unbiased," and I believe that what transpired was within that > definition. Specifically, a process is "fair" if any eligible > volunteer is equally likely to be selected. > > Even a restart is allowed by the rules. > > Now, was a restart the best choice given the issue at hand? > Personally I think there were other good choices that would have > served the purpose. Even so, it is the Chair's job to make that > decision and he obviously saw the situation differently. > > Do I want to change the rules to prevent a restart in the future? > Not just yet, but I'm following the discussion and perhaps I'll > change my mind. > > Jim > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf