One simple fix here would be to publish the list on IETF announce BEFORE it goes to the secretariat and to ONLY use that list regardless of whether people are excluded or not. This still leaves the question of what to do if people were left off the list and need to be added in. Another safeguard that can be put in place here is to date the choice of random seeds a fixed time after the list is posted. If the nomcon is appointed late well though, it does not matter. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ned Freed [mailto:ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:10 PM > To: Eliot Lear > Cc: Ned Freed; IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process > > > Ned, > > > Dave, I'm sorry, but it didn't show that at all. The specific > > > problem that arose here WAS anticipated and analyzed and > the correct > > > thing to do in this case WAS determined and documented. > See RFC 3797 > > > section 5.1 for specifics. > > > I don't know how many ways I can say this, but 5.1 is irrelevant to > > the problem I was concerned about, which is having the pool > come out > > at the same time as the results. That allows for mischief in many > > ways (not that I'm accusing anyone of that). Under the > circumstances > > I *still* believe that the chair did the correct thing, and > that his > > doing so has ensured the integrity of the process. > > First of all, as others have suggested, the problem with the > proximity of the list and result publication can be addressed > trivially by having the secretariat provide the list they > received for vetting purposes as well as the result they > handed back. Maybe I missed a response from you on this, but > AFAIK you have yet to explain why this simple action wouldn't > deal with your concerns, both in the present situation and > should a similar situation ever arise in the future. (in fact > I think you said that this would resolve the issue for you, > this time around at least.) In any case, I felt this solution > to your issue was so simple and obvious that there was no > need to comment on it further. > > Second, I have yet to hear an explanation from you as to how > the community can be confident that the process wasn't gamed > in the fashion I have previously described. AFAIK you have > failed to rebut this argument, and until you do I have to say > I regard something that's I see no way to check as many times > more serious than something that can be checked quite easily. > > In short, I think you concerns are 180% out of sync with reality here. > > Ned > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf