(replying to multiple posts in one)
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
...
Therefore, I propose the following:
(1) Andrew's decision stands. Under RFC 3777, the only recourse available
to anyone who disagrees with that decision would be to ask Andrew to
reconsider or to file a dispute with the ISOC President. The former
has already been done, and so far no reversal has been announced.
Given that it is now after the close of trading on August 31, I would
submit that a reversal of this decision by either Andrew or Lynn would
do more harm than good.
I will refrain from expressing an opinion except to say that it's Andrew's
decision as far as I'm concerned.
Michael StJohns wrote:
...
Unless I'm mistaken, I'm reading an overwhelming consensus NOT to reset
from those posting on this list.
I haven't kept count, but I think it's more evenly split (especially since
Jeff's message quoted above).
Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
To address Eliot's comment about the volunteer list -
From Andrew's note that triggered all of this I see that he sent the
list of the volunteers to the Secretariat. If we could have someone
from the Secretariat provide a copy of that email independent of
Andrew and verify it was submitted to them prior to the selection date
that should resolve Eliot's issue. Eliot?
Yes, that would have resolved my issue nicely. But I am equally
satisfied with rerunning the selection algorithm.
I believe there were some mail delivery glitches at the Secretariat
on the day in question, so this might not have been completely
straightforward.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 31 August, 2006 09:38 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Full disclosure: My personal opinion, which I *did* give to
Lynn and
Andrew when I became aware of this glitch, is that a reset is
the only
way to be certain that the selection process is unbiased.
Brian,
I don't know about others, but I'd like to hear a little more
about your reasoning (and Andrew's) about this. It seems to me
that drawing a second sample would be unbiased if the decision
to draw it were made before anyone knew the contents of the
first sample.
I was much more concerned about the failure to announce the volunteer
list before the relevant market closing than about the presence of
an ineligible name. I don't see how one can remove the theoretical
presence of bias unless the list is announced in advance. I completely
agree that an extra name in the list doesn't create bias.
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 8/31/06 at 9:38 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Full disclosure: My personal opinion, which I *did* give to Lynn and
Andrew when I became aware of this glitch, is that a reset is the only
way to be certain that the selection process is unbiased.
Brian, the fact that Andrew Cc'ed you on the issue was (IMO) not a good
idea in the first place,
He didn't. It was a person who noticed the anomaly who cc'ed me.
but given that your position is one of those
being selected, the fact that you expressed an opinion at all was
phenomenally irresponsible.
I disagree. My concern was to ensure that there is neither bias nor
appearance of potential bias in the process. I believe it would
have been irresponsible not to.
Now, in addition to questions about Andrew's
motivations for doing the reset (the theoretical "Did he want a
'do-over' because he didn't like the outcome?"), we also have to contend
with whether *you* influenced the process deliberately because *you*
didn't like the outcome. Unbelievably ill-advised on your part.
Actually, I don't recall even looking at the list of selected
volunteers.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf