My two cents: If I were to go to Las Vegas and roll the dice at a crap table, then ask to roll again because there was a clap of thunder which made my arm twitch just as I released the dice during the first roll, I assure you that they would not allow me to do so. They would not be persuaded by an argument that the second roll would have the exact same set of probabilities of outcomes as the first, or indeed as any other roll. And their decision would have nothing to do with the actual result of the first roll (i.e. it would not matter if I won or lost money, on that roll). Here we have a similar situation. We have a randomized process which at worst, was affected by a name on the list that should not have been there. While the presence of that name did affect the outcome, like the clap of thunder, it did not do so in any predictable way, and so the random ("unbiased") nature of that outcome is preserved. Resetting and re-running the process is not an appropriate response. Doing so inserts human intervention (read, "bias") into an otherwise unbiased process. So also, by the way, would a "let's decide what to do based on a coin flip" solution. That would be rather like me trying to convince the casino to do a coin flip to see if I should be allowed to roll the dice again. Any solution, other than accepting the results as they originally were generated, will be biased. In my opinion we should not rerun the process. Rerunning the process is the exact wrong thing to do. The decision to do so was no doubt made in good faith, and with the best of intentions, but it is clearly incorrect. -Matt -----Original Message----- From: James Galvin [mailto:galvin+ietf@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:13 PM To: todd glassey Cc: 'IETF-Discussion' 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 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf