Ned Freed wrote: >> 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. What we had here was a foul-up between the secretariat and the chair, largely based on timing and technical problems. There is no need for the secretariat to post its input list (although I have no objections to that). And as I wrote, in *this* case, which is what I am talking about, given the problem, the chair did the right thing. The rule which states that the chair will wait at least a week, is *almost* sufficient. If the secretariat posts the list, it should also post the date the algorithm should be run, and it should be responsible for seeing that the message is properly distributed - which is really what happened here. And even so, *other* problems can arise, and so I agree with Dave that attempting to address every contingency is going to yield to the qualifications for chair being an Internet lawyer, and nobody should want that. Save the lawyers for the real elections :-( As to whether the chair gamed the system in the way you described, it's easy enough to determine: ask the secretariat if a message got stuck in the queue. If it did, then he didn't. If it didn't then perhaps he did. Of course who is to say the secretariat didn't collude? Well, at some point we have to draw a line and simply believe they didn't. Besides having the list visibly posted in advance is sufficient to tackle this particular case. Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf