Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

[James Galvin <galvin+ietf at elistx.com>]

-- On Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:40 AM -0700 todd glassey 
<tglassey at earthlink.net> 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 mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf