Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (NomCom) Random Selection
draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-04
Yes
(Harald Alvestrand)
No Objection
(Allison Mankin)
(David Kessens)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Ned Freed)
(Russ Housley)
(Steven Bellovin)
(Ted Hardie)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ned Freed Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-02-19)
Unknown
> executed. The algorithm can be run to select, in an ordered fashion, > a larger number than are actually necessary so that if any of those > selected need to be passed over or replaced for any reason, an > ordered set of additional alternate selections will be available. I would prefer to see the above tweaked to not mention that a larger pool can be selected. This document should stick to how to select from the pool, not to suggest extensions to the nomcom algorithm. Specifically, I do not believe it is appropriate to choose a larger pool than the ten, because doing so would allow folk to see who the replacement selections would be prior to there being an opening. This may influence decisions as to whether someone should disqualify themselves, etc. It would be better not to go there and have replacements chosen by a new random selection AFTER the vacancy appears. Can the sentence just be dropped? > The random sources must not include anything that any reasonable > person would believe to be under the control or influence of the IETF > or its components, such as IETF meeting attendance statistics, > numbers of documents issued, or the like. Actually, the requirement is not that the IETF can't influence, but that it can't influence in a _negative_ way, i.e., a way that biases the final results towards a particular outcome. The document later has text that indicates this is the real issue, i.e.: It is important that the last source of randomness, chronologically, produce a substantial amount of the entropy needed. If most of the randomness has come from the earlier of the specified sources, and someone has even limited influence on the final source, they might do an exhaustive analysis and exert such influence so as to bias the selection in the direction they wanted. Thus it is best for the last source to be an especially strong and unbiased source of a large amount of randomness such as a government run lottery.