"The philosophers have analysed the IETF election process in many ways, the point is to change it" If you are going to have a procedure like this it would be best to eliminate the influence of the listing process to the greatest extent possible, discussing this with my wife, a political scientist we came up with the following fix: Instead of using the rank order in the list as the source of randomness use the email address specified by the candidate. Ie alice@xxxxxxxxxxx, bob@xxxxxxxxxxx etc. Key = hash (data) Take HMAC (email, key) for each candidate, list them in order, highest n candidates win. If there is an eligibility problem it is easily sorted, if a person was on the original list who should not have been they are simply excluded, the result is unaffected. If someone was excluded from the list you run a second seed event for that candidate alone, the scores already calculated are left unchanged. If their score placess them in the top n then they are selected. > From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 > [mailto:Donald.Eastlake@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > John, > > If the selection method is random, it makes no difference > whatsoever how the list of nomcom volunteers is ordered. It > only matters that the numbered list become fixed and be > posted before the selection information is available. > Alphabetic or the order they volunteered or any other order > is perfectly fine. > > Donald _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf