Fixing the algorithm

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>]

"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 at example.com, bob at example.com 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 at motorola.com] 

> 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 mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf