Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (NomCom) Random Selection
RFC 3797

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Harald Alvestrand) Yes

(Steven Bellovin) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Ned Freed) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

Comment (2004-02-19 for -)
>    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

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.