[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

BOUNCE poised@neptune.tis.com: Non-member submission from ["Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee@cybercash.com>]



Approved New.poised
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 12:59:36 -0500 (EST)
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee@cybercash.com>
To: "John W. Stewart III" <jstewart@mci.net>
Cc: poised@TIS.COM
Subject: Re: The NomCom Selection 
In-Reply-To: <199611051657.LAA01847@postoffice.Reston.mci.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961105123400.8908H-100000@cybercash.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

How about replacing the current:

(4)  Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 2 of the
     last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.

(5)  Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting members of the IAB,
     and sitting members of the IESG may not volunteer.

(6)  The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool
     of names of volunteers.

with:

(4)  Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 2 of the
     last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.  The list of volunteers
     shall be made public before the selection of voting volunteers.

(5)  Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting members of the IAB,
     and sitting members of the IESG may not volunteer.

(6)  The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool
     of names of volunteers by a method publicly verifiable as unbiased and
     fair. For example, selecting from the pool using an exact preannounced 
     algorithm based on future public random numbers such as public lottery
     winning nubmers.

This leaves 5 unchanged, adds publishing the volunteer list to 4, so people
can see if they have been left out and see if some they do not think eligible
have been included, and adds one sentence plus a few additional words to item
6.  I think this proposed wording demonstrates that the pages of specific
procedures some were arguing against isn't necessary and wasn't what I had in
mind anyway. 

If someone wants, I'd by happy to write some code into which you enter the
volunteer list length and a string of digits and it spews out the list of
selectees.  This could be issued as informational RFC in source code so
anyone could compile and run it. 

Donald

PS:  Some other comments I had after looking at the exact wording in the
current RFC:  I'm a bit surprised the attendance criteria have been tightened
up so much.  2 out of the last 3 meetings is pretty stringent.  As I recall,
it was originally much more lax (like 2 meetings ever).  And I think that if
I was writing this, I'd exclude ISOC employees and members of the IETF
secretariate, essentially anyone whose attendance at IETF was being paid for
by part of the I* mechanism, from being on the nomcom.  But these are minor
points in my mind and I'm not suggesting changing them unless others feel it
important.  They don't compare with fixing the selection to be demonstrably
fair. 

 On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, John W. Stewart III wrote: 

> Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 11:57:56 -0500
> From: John W. Stewart III <jstewart@mci.net>
> To: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
> Cc: poised@TIS.COM
> Subject: Re: The NomCom Selection 
> 
> 
> the topic is whether something should be added to the
> nomcomm procedures such that the selection of the
> nomcomm from the pool of volunteers is independantly
> verifiable.  the last several messages have basically
> been in favor of that in principle.  there's a specific
> proposal on the table from donald eastlake.  are we
> getting to consensus on adding something to the docs
> about this? does someone want to propose specific text?
> 
> /jws
> 

=====================================================================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd     +1 508-287-4877(tel)     dee@cybercash.com
   318 Acton Street        +1 508-371-7148(fax)     dee@world.std.com
Carlisle, MA 01741 USA     +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA)
http://www.cybercash.com           http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html