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

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz at cmu.edu>]

On Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:11:51 AM -0700 Dave Crocker 
<dcrocker at bbiw.net> wrote:

> James Galvin wrote:
> >   But there is a part of the process that is not public: the
> > actual selection of eligible volunteers.
>
> 1) The criteria are public.  2) The result is public, with the intention
> of time for review.  I'm not sure how the internals of going from 1 to 2
> could be made public and still function.  Since the criteria are
> reasonably objective, I'm having trouble seeing how "transparency" on the
> "decision" process is meaningful.

I agree.  The important property here is not that any part of the process 
be observable, but that the results be independently verifiable.  That is 
done by making all of the inputs(*) public before the process runs, and 
using a well-defined, fixed algorithm.

(*) For this purpose, the random data itself is not an "input", but the 
identification of the random source(s) and exactly how they are to be 
sampled is.


> At base, I suspect this demonstrates the problem with our being too
> rule-oriented, and not enough community oriented. It loses sight of the
> underpinnings of comfort and legitimacy, and that is community review and
> approval when a situation does -- or reasonably might -- entail the
> unknown or, at least, controversy.

Really, as soon as the need or ability to make a decision as to whether to 
reset had been made, we had already lost.

-- Jeff

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